news round up - Taxmann

2010] New Model Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Punjab (Punj. & Har.) 225
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
imposed. The dealer-appellant filed two appeals one under section 20(10)(a)
of the PGST and the other under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with
section 20(1)(a) of the PGST Act. On 11-1-2005 (A-4/A), the Appellate
Authority again remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for
passing a speaking order after verifying the facts as per the directions
given in the earlier remand order dated 28-1-2002.
5. On 28-3-2005, the Assessing Authority again passed fresh assessment
orders under the PGST Act and determined the gross sales of the dealerappellant
at Rs. 2,16,66,610. After placing reliance on ‘D’ Forms, the
Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that there was sale of motor
vehicle bodies and the transactions were not of work contract as claimed
by the dealer-appellant. It was further held that the sales were completed
within the State and, thus, liable to sales tax under PGST Act. Accordingly,
demand of Rs. 6,92,988 towards tax was raised and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs
under section 10(7) of the Act was imposed (A-5). The appeal preferred by
the dealer-appellant against order dated 28-3-2005, was dismissed by the
Appellate Authority vide order dated 27-12-2005 (A-6).
6. Against the order dated 27-12-2005 (A-6), the dealer-appellant preferred
further appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for entertaining
the appeal without prior payment of demand. The Tribunal vide order
dated 17-11-2008 disposed of the appeal holding the dealer-appellant
liable to pay the tax due as shown in the order dated 28-3-2005 passed by
the Assessing Authority. However, it has set aside the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs
under section 10(7) of the Act (A-9).
7. At the hearing, Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned senior counsel for the dealerappellant
has raised the following two questions of law for determination
of this Court :—
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was justified in holding that the erection of body on the
chassis would amount to sale, contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble
the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Variety Body Builders [1976]
38 STC 176?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was justified in holding that there would be no effect with
regard to tax liability of the dealer even if the transaction is held to
be inter-State sale?
8. The first question of law does not survive as it has already been
answered against the dealer-appellant by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
the case of CCT v. M.G. Bros. [1975] 35 STC 24. Confronted with the
aforesaid situation, Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned senior counsel could not point
out any distinguishing feature in the case in hand. Accordingly, the first
question is answered against the dealer-appellant.
9. In respect of the second question, Mr. Goyal has argued that once it is
certain that the goods were to move outside the State of Punjab then the
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 101