|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 27248 Records
-
2024 (4) TMI 622 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of impugned order dated 23.11.2020, confirming the demand for the Assessment Year 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- In view of the materials on record, the impugned order is unsustainable as the impugned order fails to note the decision of this Court in the case of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court in the case of M/S. ANNALAKSHI TRADERS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , POLLACHI (EAST) ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, POLLACHI. [2022 (1) TMI 806 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held Admittedly, in this case the respondent has not followed the procedure prescribed therein. Considering the same, I am inclined to interfere by quashing the impugned Assessment Order by remitting back the case to the respondent to pass a speaking order in terms of the above-said circular/guidelines of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
That apart, it is not in dispute that the information has been gathered by the respondent from MIS report generated with intranet web domain. The fact that the petitioner has closed down the business and surrendered the VAT registration as early as 31.03.2011 is also not in dispute - The authorities ought to have investigated and produced the dealers for cross-examination by the petitioner, as otherwise, it is quite possible, liability is being fastened on the petitioner based on the information gathered from the intranet domain based on the fictitious and bogus invoices. The duty cannot be fastened on the petitioner if indeed the petitioner had closed down the business as early as 31.03.2011.
The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 621 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Time limitation for availing Input Tax Credit - Validity of reassessment order and demand notices - Availment of Input Tax Credit by filing belated returns - HELD THAT:- In BEML's case [2023 (1) TMI 341 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the Division Bench held A plain reading of provision of Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, 2003, shows that no time limit or restriction is prescribed for availing the input tax credit.
Apart from setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the impugned reassessment orders at Annexures-'H1' to 'H3' and consequent demand notices at Annexures- 'J1' to 'J3' also deserves to be set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 467 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rejection of branch transfer / Stock transfer of Goods - movement of the goods from the manufacturing unit of the respondent at Navi Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra to the branch offices in other States - sale taking place during the course of inter-State trade or commerce or whether it was a case of branch transfer by the respondent to its branches at Ahmedabad, Delhi, Coimbatore, Bangalore, Chennai, Cochin, Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam? - burden of proof - HELD THAT:- What transpires from the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Engineering [2011 (3) TMI 1427 - SUPREME COURT] is that for a sale to be in the course of inter-State trade or commerce under section 3(a), there must be a sale of goods and such sale should occasion the movement of the goods from one State to another. To find out whether a particular transaction is a inter-State sale or not, it is essential to see whether the movement of the goods from one State to another is a result of a prior contract of sale. Under section 6A, if the dealer claims that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business and not by reason of sale, then the burden of proving that the movement of goods was so occasioned shall be on the dealer. The mode of discharge of this burden of proof has also been provided in the form of a declaration in form ‘F’. However, if the department does not take advantage of the presumption under section 3(a), but shows a positive case of sale in the course of trade or commerce to make it liable to tax under section 6, the declaration in form ‘F’ under section 6A would be of no avail.
When the ‘sale’ or ‘agreement to sell’ causes or has the effect of occasioning the movement of goods from one State to another, irrespective of whether the movement of goods is provided for in the contract of sale or not, or whether the order is placed with any branch office or any head office which resulted in the movement of goods, if the effect of such a sale is to have the movement of goods from one State to another, an inter-State sale would ensue and would result in exigibility of tax under section 3(a).
The Supreme Court in Hyderabad Engineering held that when the sale has the effect of occasioning the movement of goods from one State to another irrespective of whether the movement of goods is provided for in the contract of sale or not or whether the order is placed with any branch office or head office which resulted in movement of goods, it would be a case of inter-State sale resulting in exigibility of tax under section 3A of the CST Act.
In Ashok Leyland [2004 (1) TMI 365 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court held that where the purchaser places an order for manufacture of goods as per his specification, a presumption can be raised that agreement to sell had been entered into.
MSTT was, therefore, not justified in restricting the stand of the respondent to just three transactions for which material had been placed by the State as it is not the case of the respondent that in other transactions, the process had changed. What follows from the aforesaid factual position stated by the respondent before CESTAT is that the movement of the goods had occasioned from the factory of the respondent to the branch offices because of the orders placed by the customers at the branch offices of the respondent - thus, it has to be held that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in holding that the transaction in the present case was not a case of branch transfer but of inter-State sale and MSTT committed an error in holding that except for three transactions worth Rs. 53,21,459/-, the remaining transaction would be of branch transfers.
In view of the provisions of section 22B(1) of the CST Act, a direction would, therefore, have to be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to ascertain whether any additional amount is required to be deposited by the respondent and if so to recover the same from the respondent. A further direction is issued to the States to transfer the refundable amount to the State of Maharashtra - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 426 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Validity of reassessment proceedings - Extension of period of limitation and the consequential notice dated 29.11.2022 issued by respondent no.3 to reassess the petitioner for assessment year 2012-13 (UP) - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in M/s Modi Naturals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, UP [2023 (11) TMI 298 - SUPREME COURT] has opined that notwithstanding the non-vatable/exempt nature of DORB, its sale value would have to be considered/included for the purpose of carving out exclusion under Section 13(1)(f) of the UP VAT Act. On that reasoning, the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been reversed.
In view of the above law declared by the Supreme Court, the material on the strength of which reassessment proceedings were drawn against the petitioner for A.Y. 2012-13 (UP) does not exist. In face of the law declared by the Supreme Court, it can never be said by the revenue, turn over had escaped assessment at the hands of the petitioner for the said assessment year.
The reassessment proceedings for the reassessment year 2012-13 (UP) are quashed - the writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of tax - turnover of old machinery and equipment after the closure of business - scope of “Business” as contained in Clause (iv) of Section 2(e) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - liability of payment of interest on the admitted turnover in terms of Sub-section (2) of the Section 33 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- Upon a perusal of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, one is able to decipher that the Tribunal has categorically come to the finding that the items that were sold after the closure of the business amounting to Rs. 1,33,20,839/- are in the nature of plant and machinery falling under capital goods. In light of the same, the Tribunal came to the finding that these goods would not fall within the definition of Section 2(e)(iv) of the Act - The finding of the Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority that the particular goods were in nature of capital goods and not the goods under Section 2(m) of the Act is not a perverse finding. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not enter into the findings of the Tribunal unless the same are factually unbelievable and perverse. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, its findings are paramount and should not be interfered with by this Court unless the same are patently illegal and perverse.
It is to be noted that the amended definition of Section 2(e) of the Act only includes the sale of goods acquired during the period in which the business was carried out. This definition pre-supposes that the goods were acquired during the period in which the business was carried out and were subsequently sold after the closure of the business. The definition could very well have been amended to include all kinds of goods including capital goods. The legislature has limited itself to only sale of “goods”, and therefore, the definition of goods as per the Section 2(m) of the Act has to be taken into account and not the goods which fall under the definition of capital goods in Section 2(f).
There is no requirement to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reversal of Input Tax Credit - genuine transactions or not - deregistered firm or not - validity of assessment order.
Transactions not genuine - HELD THAT:- It is recorded that assessee, M/s. Chimco had declared purchase of coffee seeds from M/s.SLN Coffee Pvt. Ltd., and an output tax of Rs. 78,86,156/- has been paid. The assessment has been made by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The document speaks for itself that so far as petitioner was concerned, the tax amount was paid.
M/s. Chimco was deregistered - HELD THAT:- The document (Annexure-M) filed by the assessee shows that deregistration has been approved on 16.07.2011 and the effective date of deregistration mentioned therein is from 01.06.2006. The assessment year is 2009-10. As on that date, the said firm was not deregistered and it is only on 16.07.2011, deregistration has been retrospectively made.
Assessment order - M/s. Chimco does not exist - HELD THAT:- The assessment order and deregistration order clearly show that said private limited company was registered with Commercial Tax Department and the assessment has been made by an officer of the rank of Commercial Tax Officer.
Once movement of goods is accepted and in the assessment order of M/s. Chimco, the Assessing Officer has noted payment of output tax in a sum of Rs. 78,86,156/-, the contentions urged on behalf of the Revenue are untenable and liable to be rejected.
The order passed by the full Bench of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set-aside - revision petition is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 322 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Review of the order - Recovery of dues - priority of charges - secured creditor have a prior right over the relevant Department of the Government to appropriate the amount realized by the sale of a secured asset - HELD THAT:- Considering the clear findings as recorded by the Court, in which the Court has clearly observed that the situation would be governed by the determination in paragraph 154 therein as there is material to indicate that the action of sale proclamation initiated by the respondents was preceded by notice under Section 178 of the MLR Code, warrant of attachment under Section 267(3), order of attachment in Form 4 and auction proclamation notice in Form 7 under the MRLR Rules.
It is thus clear that the entire procedure as known to law has been followed by the respondent/Sales Tax Department as observed and accepted by the Court. More so having already taken a chance to argue the case in the alternative, based on the provisions of Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the petitioners cannot be permitted to have a second round of arguments on the same issues under the garb of a review petition.
The principles on the exercise of the review jurisdiction are well settled. The Supreme Court in THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER [2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly held that a review cannot be sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence. Such matter or evidence would be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same has been produced, it might have altered the judgment. It was thus observed that the mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not a sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. It was further held that parties seeking review also need to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier.
There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the judgment rendered by this Court. In fact, accepting the argument of petitioner involves the exercise of re-scrutiny and reconsideration of the facts and legal position, which stands already considered and concluded in the judgment under review. In the light of the above discussion, it is opined that the review petition is devoid of any merit.
Review petition dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 220 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - requirement to pay the mandatory pre-deposit under the GVAT Act and CST Act.
It is the case of the petitioner that the Commissioner Appeals as well as the Tribunal while passing an order of pre-deposit has not considered the prima facie case in favour of the appellant.
HELD THAT:- It appears that the Tribunal has imposed the condition of pre-deposit consisting of the entire demand under the Central Sales Tax. The Tribunal has passed an order requiring the appellant to deposit Rs. 36,00,000/- out of the total remaining demand of Rs. 36,19,825/-. Therefore we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order of pre-deposit without considering the fact that if the appellant is required to pay almost entire amount of the outstanding dues then the very purpose of pre-deposit would be frustrated.
Therefore, as the appellant is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- to show the bona fides and to enable the appellant to furnish the statutory forms in the remaining period of pre-deposit, the interest of justice would be served if the amount of pre-deposit is reduced to Rs. 5,23,000/-.
The appellant is therefore to deposit Rs. 5,23,000/- on or before 15.07.2024 towards the mandatory pre-deposit in the appellate proceedings and the present appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority who will hear the appeals filed by the appellant on deposit of Rs. 5,23,000/- on or before 15.07.2024 - Matter on remand.
-
2024 (4) TMI 219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Requirement to fulfil condition to deposit 15% of the disputed tax demand, to participate in the assessment proceedings - alleged mismatch of purchases between the returns filed by the appellant and the other dealers - HELD THAT:- The learned Judge, after having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, has granted one opportunity to the assessee, however subject to a condition that the assessee has to deposit 15% of the tax demanded, by the order impugned herein. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when the learned Judge is inclined to remand the matter to the respondent for re-consideration, he ought not to have imposed such condition on the appellant, which is illegal and contrary to law.
The issue involved herein had already been considered by a Division Bench in Havea Handles & Components Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Royapettah II Assessment Circle, Chennai [2014 (7) TMI 1367 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and it was held that It has to be pointed out, at this stage, that once it has been found that the orders impugned in the writ petitions are unsustainable on account of violation of principles of natural justice, it is wholly unnecessary to impose any condition while remitting the matter for fresh adjudication and in the considered opinion of this court, the direction given to the appellant / writ petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amount as claimed in the demand notice, as a condition precedent to enquire into the matter, is unsustainable and the said portion of the order is liable to be set aside.
Following the above said judgment, in an identical case in M/S. R.P.S. & CO VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) BROUGH ROAD CIRCLE, ERODE [2022 (2) TMI 1430 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], this court, in which, one of us (RMDJ) was a member, has set aside the pre-condition imposed on the appellant therein to deposit 30% of the tax amount for consideration of the matter afresh by the assessing authority, observing that the same was certainly unwarranted.
This Court is inclined to set aside the order of the learned Judge insofar as directing the appellant / assessee to deposit 15% of the demanded tax as a condition precedent for re-doing the assessment by the authority and the same is accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the appellant / assessee is directed to file objections to the order passed by the respondent treating the same as show cause notice as directed by the learned Judge, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 166 - SC ORDER
Illegal attachment and withdrawal from bank account by respondents to recover the arrears of VAT dues of another company - it was held by High Court that There is no question of lifting the corporate veil treating that the proprietor of petitioner entity and the assessee M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Limited as one and the same or as entities which are connected or related - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 165 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Levy of tax under Section 4A of the Entry Tax Act - extraction of coal and the work of coal extraction - manufacture or not - HELD THAT:- The issue raised by the applicant needs to be adjudicated. Therefore, the Commercial Tax Tribunal is called upon to make a reference elaborating the facts and question of law and refer the same to this Court.
The Tax Case is disposed of.
-
2024 (4) TMI 2 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Recovery of dues - priority of charges - whether appellant State/Excise Department will be having first charge upon the property of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd., in terms of provisions of Section 26 of the H.P. VAT Act, 2005 or secured creditor Punjab National Bank shall have priority to recover over any other charge, including charge in favour of State, in terms of provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) as amended from time to time?
HELD THAT:- In Central Bank of India’s case [2009 (2) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT], it was held by the Supreme Court that charge created in favour of State under the provisions of General Sales Tax Act in respect of sales tax dues prevailed over the charge created in favour of the Bank in respect of loan taken by a person/Firm/Company and the amendment made in the State operated in respect of charge that were in force on the date of introduction of Section 33-C of Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, creating first charge in favour of the State.
After incorporation of Section 31-B in RDB Act, High Court of Kerala has decided similar issue in a petition State Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others, WP (C) No. 28316 of 2016 and other connected matters, vide judgment dated 30.07.2019 [2019 (7) TMI 1684 - KERALA HIGH COURT] holding that secured creditor under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act, obtains priority over the right claimed by the Revenue both in proceeding against the properties in question or in recovering the secured debt.
It is apt to record that in Section 38 of Kerala Value Added Tax, 2003, there was provision that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force for recovery of any amount of tax, penalty, interest and any other amount, if any, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act, there shall be the first charge in favour of State on the property of the dealer, or such person - It is apt to record that SARFAESI Act and RDB Act are Special Central Acts, whereras H.P. VAT Act is a State Act.
In view of provisions of Articles 246, 251 and 254 of Constitution of India, law made by the Parliament i.e. Central Act, RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, shall prevail upon law made by the legislature of the State, i.e. H.P. VAT Act and being special enactment shall also have precedence over any general Central Act.
Thus, learned Single Judge has not committed any mistake, irregularity, illegality or perversity in allowing petition2 preferred by respondent No. 1- petitioner Himanshu Prashar - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1134 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Recovery of dues - Attachment of assets - dues of MVAT Authorities’ have charge in priority to the secured creditors or not - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 26-E would show that once a secured creditor registers its security interest (under Section 26-B), notwithstanding any other law in force, the debts owed to the secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts including taxes payable to the State Government. The “registration of security interest” referred to in Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, is the registration of such interest with CERSAI under Section 26-B.
The formulation of the two provisions in the SARFAESI Act and the MVAT Act respectively, is a conscious policy choice of balancing of interests of competing creditors who have finite assets to pursue in enforcing recovery of their claims. Dues owed to banks, if not paid, can have a harsher and wider adverse social impact. A collapse of banks would not only hurt the interests of various depositors but also inflict a wider deleterious impact on other segments of the economy. Potentially, it would be tax-payers’ funds that would have to be infused into the banks to bail them out to avoid such adverse social impact. On the other hand, if the banks are given a priority in recovery, and in the process, the secured assets are sold without hindrance to an auction purchaser, such asset would continue to be put to economic use, which would also generate tax revenues. In addition, other assets that are not the subject matter of a security interest registered prior in time can continue to be proceeded against in enforcement proceedings to recover tax dues.
The issue at hand has been extensively analysed in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank [2022 (9) TMI 163 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Examining multiple fiscal statutes that create a statutory charge over assets of an assessee and their interplay with Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act where such assessee has created a security interest in favour of secured creditors, the Full Bench of this Court held that where Section 26-E is attracted, the position in law is not that dues owed to a department of the State Government would have to be paid first. The Full Bench repelled exactly the same argument we were presented with – that Section 26-E only provides a “priority” but does not actually create a “first charge”, whereas provisions akin to Section 37 of the MVAT Act create a first charge. The Full Bench held that the secured creditor whose security interest is registered with CERSAI prior in time, would get precedence over the dues owed to the State. The Full Bench ruled that such a formulation is a conscious choice made by the legislature.
The assertion of the MVAT Authorities that they had priority over secured creditors was totally misconceived and without basis in law. Statutory authorities enforcing law must necessarily refrain from conducting themselves in a manner that conflicts with the law declared by a Full Bench of a constitutional court. There are no hesitation in declaring that none of the attachment orders can result in the MVAT Authorities stealing a march in priority over the registered security interest enjoyed by the Petitioner-led consortium of banks.
The impugned attachment orders of the MVAT Authorities dated 24th February, 2022, 7th April, 2022 (issued to the Borrower) and 31st July, 2023 (issued to the Petitioner) would not confer any priority over the registered security interest enjoyed by the Petitioner-led consortium banks over the Secured Assets - The Petitioner has the first priority in respect of enforcement against the Secured Assets by reason of Section 26-E and having a prior registration of the security interest with CERSAI. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to enforce such security interest enjoying priority over the MVAT Authorities.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1033 - SUPREME COURT
Rate of the State sales tax on silk fabrics - taxable at 4% or 12%? - demand made for the period between 15th January 2000 and 31st March 2000 - HELD THAT:- During the said period, silk fabric was a part of Schedule I of the DST Act, on which sales tax was leviable at the rate of 12%. Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act were deleted by Act No. 18 of 2017. Section 14, before its deletion, declared certain goods specified therein as of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce. Until 11th May 1968, item (xi) was incorporated in Section 14, which covered the item of “silk sarees”. However, with effect from 11th May 1968, the said item was deleted by Act No. 19 of 1968.
Section 15(1) of the CST Act, as existed during the period for which the impugned assessment was made, provided that the local sales tax rate on declared goods should not exceed 4% of the sale or purchase price of such goods. So long as the silk fabric was a part of the list of declared goods under Section 14 of the CST Act, the sales tax levy under the DST Act could not have exceeded 4% in view of Section 15(1) of the CST Act. However, silk fabric was deleted from the list contained in Section 14 of the CST Act, effective 11 May 1968. Therefore, during the relevant period for which the impugned assessment order was issued, as silk fabric was not a part of the list under Section 14, there was no embargo on levying sales tax on silk fabric at a rate exceeding 4%. Therefore, the argument based on Section 15(1) of the CST Act will not help the appellant.
The second Schedule of the ADE Act provides that during each financial year, each State shall be paid a certain percentage of net proceeds of the additional duties levied and collected during the financial year in respect of the goods described in column (3) of Schedule I. However, no additional duty was made payable on silk fabric under the ADE Act. The proviso makes it clear that notwithstanding the ADE Act, there is no bar on the States levying sales tax - the argument that as silk fabric formed a part of Schedule I of the ADE Act, it disentitled the State Government from levying sales tax is fallacious and cannot be accepted.
The High Court has noted that its Co-ordinate Bench in the case of MR. TOBACCO PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2006 (1) TMI 567 - DELHI HIGH COURT] upheld the validity of notification dated 31st March 2000 issued under the DST Act.
There are no error in the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1032 - SC ORDER
Settlement of dues - determination of tax liability under the M.P. Sales Tax Act, M.P. Vat Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act and Entry Tax Act - HELD THAT:- It is informed that proceedings under the SICA Act were concluded by the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 28.01.2024. A copy of the order dated 28.01.2014 is placed and it evidences that the issue relating to the tax claim by the State of Madhya Pradesh has attained finality.
In view of the representation of the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the above referred order of BIFR that the Company had settled their dues, followed by the final direction of the BIFR, that Government need not attend further hearings, nothing remains for consideration in these appeals.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1031 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Review petition - Issuance of sales certificate with regard to the sales tax dues - Registration of a Sale Certificate issued in favor of one party for a property purchased in an auction held by another party under the SARFAESI Act. - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v/s. N Raju Reddiar and Another [1996 (12) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of litigants engaging a fresh set of Advocates to file and also argue matters in Review proceedings, without obtaining the consent of the Advocate who had appeared at the original stage.
In the above case, the Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition with exemplary costs - the present case is not different and would completely fall in the nature of the proceedings which have been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the above judgement.
The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today, with the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. In the event, if such costs are not deposited, the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority shall take further steps to recover the said costs as arrears of land revenue.
-
2024 (3) TMI 973 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reduction of turnover - cement imported from outside the State of U.P. - Rule 9 of the Value Added Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the order of Tribunal it is patently clear that the goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. and were used in one project in the State of U.P. There does not appear to be any perversity in the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the above factum. Such being the case, Rule 9 (1)(e) of the Rules would definitely apply and the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit thereunder.
The general rule of law in taxing statutes is that in case of any doubt the benefit should be given to the assessee. However, in case of exemption and deduction to be given, a stricter approach may be followed, as per catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, to examine whether the assessee is eligible for such benefit. In the present case, there is no factual dispute of goods having been imported from outside the State of U.P. and, therefore, the assessee clearly qualifies for the said benefit.
The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department - Application dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 972 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply is not clear and unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is not clear and satisfactory which ex-facie shows that the Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that reply was unsatisfactory and further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The order cannot be sustained, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication - the impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not satisfactory. The Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 909 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - bills to indicate that no form 'C' was ever issued not considered - erroneous observation that sale took place - no opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the revisionist at any stage by the authorities.
Revisionist was having three copies of the bills in his bill book which has not been appreciated by the competent authority - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the assessment order dated 24.03.2011 would indicate that the version of the revisionist has been considered by the assessing authority and he has observed that he himself has examined the bill book upon being produced by the revisionist but the bill book is not having the original bill contained in the bill book. Thus, the said ground is rejected. Incidentally, this finding of the bill book having been examined by the Authority has not been denied anywhere by the revisionist upon filing of either the first appeal or the second appeal.
The learned Tribunal has erroneously observed in the judgment dated 14.12.2012 that sale took place with respect to bill no. 107 dated 01.01.2008 and bill no.121 dated 30.01.2008 of which all three copies are available in the bill book as per the list of sales produced before the Tax Assessing Authority - HELD THAT:- No denial to the said finding has been given by the revisionist while filing the instant revision of the said sales being indicated in the list of sales produced before the Assessing Authority. As such, the said ground is rejected.
No opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the revisionist - HELD THAT:- The said ground is also misconceived considering that the assessment order dated 24.03.2011 has been passed after issuing notice to the revisionist and thereafter the revisionist had ample opportunity while filing the first and second appeal of rebutting the specific finding that had been given by the assessing authority which he himself failed to do - while considering the revision filed by the revisionist and even considering the grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, no perversity or illegality emerges and consequently no case for interference is made out.
The instant revision as well as the connected revision is dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2024 (3) TMI 845 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Constitutionality of the certain provisions of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- The pre-deposit made by the appellant during the pendency of the Writ Petition(s) shall continue till the disposal of the Writ Petition(s).
Appeal disposed off.
........
|
