#Delhi High Court #Judgement NAND KISHORE MEGH RAJ JEWELLERS - TopicsExpress



          

#Delhi High Court #Judgement NAND KISHORE MEGH RAJ JEWELLERS versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX | TLDC India Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax, Delhi by their order dated 3rd January, 2012, have referred the following three questions under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellants contravened the third proviso to Section 4(2)(a) even if part of the manufacturing process is carried out outside Delhi and then these goods have been received back in Delhi and the process of finishing howsoever insignificant but have been finally manufactured in Delhi where the finishing is done and the manufacturing process is completed in Delhi to make the goods marketable and goods are sold from Delhi in the course of Export out of India. 2. Whether the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances was correct and justified in ignoring the fact that manufacturing could be in number of processes and each process may be in itself be a process of manufacturing and till such time the last process is performed the goods remain in the “process of manufacturing” which is not in contravention to the requirement of Section 4(2)(a) of Delhi Sales Tax Act and the only requirement of law is that the goods should be manufactured in Delhi. Law being silent on part-manufacturing, whether Tribunal could still invoke the 3rd proviso in such case. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the conclusion of the Tribunal is just and right in construing that movement of raw material outside Delhi is permissible only for the “process not amounting to manufacture” as per rule 4 of Rules framed under Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 even if one process of manufacturing is partly done outside Delhi and remaining process is completed in Delhi and confirming the findings of the STO that petitioner is deemed to have violated the provisions of Section 4(2)(a) and so the dealer was liable to be...
Posted on: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 04:30:49 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015