Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006
Goyal Motor Parts vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 15 March, 2010
3. The petitioner company is an assessee on the file of the 2nd respondent and dealing with Long Backup Uninterrupted Power Supply (LB-UPS) and on its sale during the relevant year, the petitioner paid tax at 4% under sub-entry 27 in Entry 68 of Part-B of First Schedule of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short TNVAT Act, 2006) According to the petitioner, the first respondent assessed the sales turnover of LB-UUPS at 12.5%, however it is liable to tax at 4% or 5% under sub-entry 27 in Part B of First Schedule, as the issue has already settled by the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil)/CC.No.15021/2010 dated 15.02.2010 (Goyal Motor Parts Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 38 VST 159(P&H)). Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent-original authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent-appellate authority after complying with the condition of payment of admitted tax and 25% disputed tax and praying for stay of balance amount of tax. The first respondent heard the matter and passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2015, wherein, the petitioner was directed to pay another 25% of the disputed tax and file bank guarantee for the balance of tax on or before 28.02.2015 for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this petition.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989
7. I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The powers granted to the appellate authority by the Statute are wide and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court, unless it was exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. Further, it is a settled principle of law that the writ Court is not certainly sitting in appeal over each and every order passed by the statutory authority. The task of the writ Court to examine the decision-making process was found in the decision reported in State of UP versus Maharaja Dharmedar Prasad Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997. The writ Court is averse to interfere with the acts and actions of the statutory authorities unless those are beyond jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
1