2018 (3) TMI 350 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 265 (Ker.) – Validity of assessment order – main activity, according to the petitioner, is the supply and installation of goods purchased from the vendor by integrating such goods to the need of such customer – Held that: – The power of the Commissioner would depend upon the factual situation. In that sense, without adverting to the factual situation, the Commissioner could not have exercised the power. That means the Commissioner had erred in exercising the jurisdiction to pass such order – this Court can invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to set right such jurisdictional error committed in the decision making process. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside leaving it for reconsideration – appeal allowed by way of remand. – W. P. (C). No. 40371 of 2017 Dated:- 1-2-2018 – MR. A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. For The Petitioner : Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar Sri.P.Gopinath Sri.K.John Mathai Sri.Joson Manavalan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er to pay ₹ 6,91,86,012/- and ₹ 1,52,53,311/-. This is based on two show cause notices issued to the petitioner. This assessment order is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned standing counsel for the Department raised an objection with regard to maintainability. According to the learned standing counsel, the petitioner is having an alternate remedy and without recourse to such alternate remedy, the petition is not maintainable. Learned standing counsel also submitted that the Commissioner has elaborately considered the point of law involved in the matter with respect to the facts and therefore, this Court cannot invoke its power under Article 226 of the Constitution as an appellate authority to interfere with such assessment order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner committed a grave jurisdictional error in passing the order. According to the learned counsel, it is overlooking facts involved in this matter, the Commissioner pa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t is only on being satisfied that each of such goods come within the meaning of manufacture, the Commissioner has a power under the Central Excise Act to impose excise duty on the petitioner. There cannot be generalization of the activity of the petitioner to hold that all the activities of the petitioner fall within the meaning of manufacturing goods. No doubt, the law discussed by the Commissioner is the correct principles revolving around the issue. But, the point is whether each of the activities of the petitioner would fall for consideration as a 'manufacturer of goods' or not. 6. The petitioner's case is that they have provided service to different customers in the assessment year and each of such services would depend upon the requirement of such customers. The main activity, according to the petitioner, is the supply and installation of goods purchased from the vendor by integrating such goods to the need of such customer. Therefore, in such situation, the Commissio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =