75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

September 2015

2015 (39) STR 235 (Tri.-Mum.) CCE, Pune – III vs. Maharashtra State Bureau of Text Books Production & Curriculum Research

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Communication, determining the right of the party or likely to affect the rights, is appealable even though it may not be in the nature of an ‘order’.

Facts:
In view of centralised accounting system, the appellate authority allowed facility of centralised registration at the head office of the respondents, being the recipient of Goods Transport Agency services. Revenue argued that the rejection of centralised registration was through a letter, which cannot be appealed against and only service providers can be granted with centralised registration.

Held:
It is a well-settled law that a letter, conveying grounds of rejection and also the rejection, is an appealable order. The argument, that only service providers are eligible to obtain centralised registration, is meaningless and would defeat the objective of such registration. In Indirect tax laws, registration is linked with taxpayer, which is service recipient in the present case. Since respondents satisfied the conditions for centralised registration, centralised registration was rightly allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

A. P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 5 dated 16th July, 2015

By questioning expanding reservations, Bhagwat and Prasada draw fire but point out the obvious