news round up - Taxmann

240 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1
12. In such circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the
delay has to be condoned and the matter should be directed to be heard
on merits. In view of the above finding, the impugned order is set aside, the
delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent stand condoned and
the first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and hear
the appeal and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
■■
[2010] 1 GST 240 (ALL.)
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
v.
Ashish Automobiles*
DR. SATISH CHANDRA, JJ.
SALES TAX REVISION NO. 32 OF 1990
AUGUST 27, 2009
MANUFACTURE - Assessment year 1981-82 - Assessee carried on business
of purchasing and selling of scooters, their parts, etc. - It had
purchased chassis of scooters against Form 3A and later put body
fabricated over it and sold same as tempo to customers - Assessing
Officer opined that tempo was a different commodity liable to purchase
tax under section 3AAAA - Whether mounting of body over chassis did
not amount to manufacturing activity but it facilitated chassis for
purpose of usable item and, thus, no different commercial item had
emerged - Held, yes - Whether, consequently, impugned order passed by
Assessing Officer was to be set aside - Held, yes [Section 3AAAA of the
U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948]
FACTS
The assessee carried on the business of purchasing and selling scooters,
their parts, etc. It had purchased the chassis of the scooters against Form
3A and later put the body fabricated over it and sold same as tempo to the
customers. The Assessing Officer opined that the tempo was a different
commodity liable to purchase tax under section 3AAAA. On second appeal,
*In favour of assessee.
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 116
A
B
C
D
E
F
G