Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Allahabad High Court

The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. ... vs S/S. Mansion Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. ... on 16 October, 2019

Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh

Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 59
 
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 14 of 2017
 
Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
 
Opposite Party :- S/S. Mansion Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. Meerut
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey,S.C.
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shubham Agrawal
 

 
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
 

1. The revision has been filed with a delay of 165 days to which objection has been raised in the counter affidavit.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the delay condonation matter is taken on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The present revision has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 23.04.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Meerut in Second Appeal No.1 of 2016 filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14. By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the assessment order.

5. During the assessment year in question, the assessee was engaged in providing cable television network to its subscribers against value. It had been subjected to service tax as a service provider. The Tribunal has set aside the assessment order under the UP VAT Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the reasoning that the assessee was only a service provider.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that there was some element of sale of goods namely, set top box in the value Rs.1,200/- received by the assessee from each subscriber. The argument so advanced, even if found to be factually correct, to any extent, may not itself lead to an assessment of tax liability under the Act, in absence of any enabling provision being first shown to exist on the basis of such calculation or bifurcation or apportionment of the total value may have been made.

7. Accordingly, the present revision is therefore dismissed, both on count of delay as also on the reasoning noted above.

Order Date :- 16.10.2019 S.Chaurasia