Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. He submits, with reference to the case, that the eiectromagnetic waves are .rnereiiV/itt1he.frrie'd.i'_pm'i'of"

communication. They are not deliver'ed,7'_A_%stored~. Hence, they are not marketab|e.._,:v"lf_ i:he'y__areu 1n,ot'5._:d'eiiivérableat goods in existence, there is. no tra,n.ster_o"¥..user at-a.|I.._x§ Providing access or telephone connec't'i'on- does}no't:ffpiit'»»the subscriber in possession of the el_e'ctron§ag"netic 'vi«;§vr\:_esVV-ans?"'more than a toll collector putswa._ifcad':':o;r'.bricige 'in't'o~~e-the possession of the toil payer by lilftingél a' 'electromagnetic waves are not capable of being.V%%broog_ht'._a'rad5'so|d. Therefore there cannot be COiT_i:'Cl'3E'i(ZEt_T:0f_ i:he""'sa.i_e....and purchase of the electromagnetic vJa.yes,"-..,i'vi.eith'e.r'"'they are deliverable nor their price is Ii",____dei:erri"zihn'aéb|e{ trite position in law that a data transfer is oniy a teieco'nj:n"iLinication service, Mohan Parasaran, the ieamed Additionai Solicitor it Qleheial of India appearing for Sri P,S.Dinesh Khmer for the """i..p'etiti0ners {Mfs BSNL in W.P.No,21836/2010 and other ,g;~;= connected §Z}8titiGf'§S) submits that the alternative remedy fiiing the statutory appeal is not efficacious; but it is enei'oti"s.;"and bU£'d€!'lSOi'T1E2 because of the prescribed f3feCOnditjG.i"l:'-0f<_:§é#j0S.iVf"i'1:l 50% of the demanded amounts.
19. "Fhe teamed Additionai Solicitor GeneraltAe'fe'rs[:'to Deputy Commissioners opinion, which ,.i.s_to the"e'f§eVct'"'th'_a.t the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is Vic-.om;i_ng:'ln7th'e::'vi'.f,'y=:"iiofV':'the Department levying tax on'l_"-the 't.rarisact.§on{'~...,_.in\.io|ving.D' electromagnetic waves. He 'that..tiie:_facts of writ petition No.21836/2010 from the facts of W.P.No.35223-34/20.1.0 (Bhai*otifAiVrtel»)_._w."_In.'A"i3':§.NL case, bias is alleged. Despite Supreme Court's judgment in" ca's'e"iVs coming in the way of imposing the transactions in question and despite the GVovernrn:evn4ti"sv_" the review petition and the vl:io.nv'blev_»:£-iupremye Doort..__dismissing the review petition; both on the gamma and on merits, the Deputy Commissioner has p'ass'ed theV«"tjoi9riers. The iearneci Senior Counsel attributes institutioiiel Vlbioasélto the Deputy Commissioner who has acted in «:1the.jit.miVo'l capacities of e Nodal Qfficer for fiiing the review petition if-..en<:l' as; 3 reassessment officer for passing the impugned orders. Gnceellthe Deputy Commissioner has formed the View that the Ditransaction in question is taxabl even before his passing of the '..',-,3,' impugned order, he ought not to have been entrusted with the reassessment work in respect of the petitioner BSNL.
28. The learned. my notice the Hon'b|e Supreme_.C;i,oiiAi;:f:t'fsv_ case of ARUN KUMAR AND orusaswyi.i-.1;iii§r.oni\iR omens, reported in (2007) 1 is held that no authority can confer upon iiétseilfi which it otherwise does not possess and if an irvrongiy assumes the existence of order can be questioned by fiiing a writ: of_c-ef;fi:io'.*a'i_'~i,,.__ 'fine iearned Senior Counsei submits, drawing V"V1.:VVs'o;_iport ""ii7ror1fi.i:vi*i'e Apex Courts judgment in the case of iu4"_"Ifii3M"M.IS$ION.ER or cusroms, CALCUTTA mm omens v.

A'=_1";r::~'.i;'%oe:ia~.=a':'-:i'-sou... CORPN. no. AND ANOTHER; resorted in Vi(i2§_£3'O--<is'}V 3 SCC 488 that an assessee cannot be driven to fife an hu"'..i»_""«.afii';§eal to get rid of arr obviousiy iiiegai order.

29. When the impugned reassessment orders are"'passed at the instance of the Legislative Smb~CommitteefW_i'£oVV"p44i}~to'ose would be served by fiiing an appeal to the next of the Deputy Commissioner Le. ttiem'Joint"--,CornAifnis_siVo'i'ierx.'ofi7 Comrnerciai Taxes. For advancing this'.coi"itention;_i'Sari Pair-as'alta'3 has relied on the second part of the'Hon'VwBi.ve'VV§oVorem'e Courts judgment in the ce;'s.e v. STATE or HARYANA AM)"d1f*:~i"E:RSii_:'Vi~é'g2§i_tted in AIR 1935 SC 114?. The hereinbelow: