1. Sale of flat under construction
“It is to be noticed that the ownership of land is with the builder itself, and there is no development agreement entered into by the builders with the owners of the land. This is a material circumstance, which has completely been omitted from consideration by the Tribunal, while passing the order impugned. The question as to whether a works contract had been awarded, and that the goods and materials were utilised for the purposes, is essentially a question of fact, which would depend upon the nature of transaction, resorted to between the parties.”
“It seems that Tribunal did not deal with the factual issues relating to transaction itself, as it was under the belief that the ratio of law laid down in K. Raheja Development Corporation (supra) as well as M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) were clearly apparent. The distinction in fact have not been noticed, though it was apparent and had been pressed. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has failed to discharge the obligation imposed upon it by law of dealing with the factual issues raised and pressed before it, and therefore the order of Tribunal cannot be sustained. Since the Tribunal has not gone into factual issues in correct perspective, as such, the findings returned by it on the different issues are not liable to be sustained. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the issues on merits, and any observations made in this order is not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the respective claim of parties on merits. All issues of fact and law are left open to be considered by the Tribunal.
[Source: M/s. Supertech Ltd. Noida v. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, STR Nos. 2 and 3 of 2017, dated 6th January, 2017 (All)].
The court cannot interpret the law in such a manner so as to read into the Act an inherent power of condoning the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to supplement the provisions of the VAT Act which excludes the operation of Section 5 by necessary implications.
[Source: M/s. Patel Brothers v. State of Assam And Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2017, dated 4th January, 2017 (SC)].
3. Revision – Limitation for issue of notice – If not prescribed in Act – Must be issued within reasonable period
Even if no period of limitation is provided under the Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction that does not mean that the power can be exercised at any time. The notice issued for revising the assessment after more than 7 years certainly deserves to be set aside on account of delay.
[Source: M/s. G.R. Wool Agencies v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 950 of 2006 dated 17th November, 2016 (P and H)]