|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1300 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Denial of rebate claim - Valuation of goods - rebate of re-credited Cenvat amount in cash. - Held that:- Place of removal may be factory/warehouse, a depot, premise of a consignment agent or any other place of removal from where the excisable goods are to be sold for delivery at place of removal. - Government observes that once the place of removal is decided within the geographical limit of the country, it cannot be beyond the port of loading of the export goods. Under such circumstances, the place of removal is the port of export where sale takes place. The appellate authority’s observation that it is quite possible that the parties enter into any agreement under which the exporter is obliged to deliver the goods to the Shipping Company and in such a case the place of delivery may be the place of removal is not tenable.
Whole duty of excise would mean the duty payable under the provisions of Central Excise Act. Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on one’s own volition cannot be treated as duty. But it has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit with the Government which is required to be returned to the respondent in the manner in which it was paid as the said amount cannot be retained by Government without any authority of law - ocean freight as mentioned in the shipping bill cannot form part of value determined under Section 4(1)(a) in view of above discussed statutory provision. Original authority has rightly allowed the rebate claim of the duty paid on value of exported goods as determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Government, therefore, sets aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1299 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Denial of rebate claim - Clearance to SEZ could not be equated with that of export - clearances would not be eligible for grant of rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- since the deemed export to 100% EOU is considered as physical export and therefore clearances to SEZ are also be treated as physical exports for the purpose to grant rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. - rebate claim of duty paid on goods cleared to SEZ is rightly held admissible by Commissioner (Appeals) under 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Government finds no infirmity with said Order-in-Appeal - Decision in the case of CCE v. NBM Industries [2011 (9) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] followed - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1298 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Simultaneous availment of the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., both dated 9-7-2004 - Under C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 795/28/2004-CX, dated 28-7-2004, it was clarified that simultaneous availment of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. was permissible subject to the condition that a manufacturer should maintain separate books of accounts for goods availing the benefit of these notifications - However, appellants were not maintaining separate accounts for the Cenvat credit taken for dyes and chemicals used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods - credit availed on the input used in manufacture of such exempted goods was reversed subsequently - such reversal of credit is not equivalent to the credit availed - Invocation of extended period of limitation.
Held that:- Total credit reversed by the first appellant during the period December 2004 to November 2005 was more than the pro rata credit required to be reversed and calculated by the Revenue. There was, therefore, no reason to reverse any credit or demand of duty for the period December 2004 to November 2005. It was, therefore, essential to provide the basis of short Cenvat reversal calculated by the Revenue. It is further pointed out by the advocate of the appellants that as per submissions dated 20-8-2013 filed by the Department now a credit of ₹ 55,94,675/-, ₹ 18,89,252/- and ₹ 19,77,942/- has been shown to be the balance credit required to be reversed by Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. - The differences in amount calculations only indicate that the methodology adopted by the Revenue in calculating the reversal of Cenvat credit is not authentic. In the absence of any convincing data to the effect that reversal of Cenvat credit done by the appellants is not proper, it has to be held that reversal of Cenvat credit on pro rata basis was correctly done by Appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3. So far as appellant No. 4 is concerned, already a credit of ₹ 8,33,578/- has been reversed against an amount of ₹ 6,91,464/- required to be reversed on pro rata basis.
The quantum of reversal of Cenvat credit was never questioned by the Revenue. Once appellants declared the quantum of Cenvat credit reversed on the query of field formations, it cannot be held that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants with an intention to evade duty attracting extended period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, extended period of demand was not invokable in the present proceedings and show cause notices have also to be held as time-barred. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1297 - SUPREME COURT
To conduct an investigation de novo into the conspiracy and gruesome murder - Request for appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team - Held that:- In the decision of Ram Jethmalani and others Vs. Union of India and others reported [2011 (7) TMI 844 - Supreme Court of India ](to which one us Justice S.S. Nijjar was a party) considering the nature of grievances expressed by the writ petitioner, constituted a High Level Committee as an Special Investigation Team in order to ensure that an effective investigation is carried out and the culprits were brought to book.
From the various decisions relied upon by the petitioner counsel as well as by respondents counsel, the following principles can be culled out - The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy - Unless there is an express or implied constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of even an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out - If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law - It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice - In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can even constitute Special Investigation Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution - While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special Investigation Team, the High Court or this Court can also monitor such investigation in order to ensure proper conduct of the prosecution - n appropriate cases even if the chargesheet is filed it is open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any other independent agency in order to do complete justice - In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may direct for investigation de novo.
Having noted the various relevant features, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding of the case by the prosecution either by the State Police or by the CID and after it was taken over by CBI was not carried out in a satisfactory manner. The very fact that after the occurrence took place on 21.05.2001 there was serious lapse in apprehending many of the accused and the absconding of the prime accused Nicol Tamang and Dinesh Subba till this date disclose that there was total lack of seriousness by the prosecution agency in carrying out the investigation. The circumstances pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, namely, the absconding of many of the accused between May, 2010 and February, 2013 was a very relevant circumstance which gives room for suspicion in the mind of this Court as to the genuineness with which the case of the prosecution was being carried out. The submission that the murder took place due to political rivalry cannot be a ground for anyone, much less, the investigation agency to display any slackness or lethargic attitude in the process of investigation. Whether it be due to political rivalry or personal vengeance or for that matter for any other motive a murder takes place, it is the responsibility of the police to come up to the expectation of the public at large and display that no stone will remain unturned to book the culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt with under the provisions of the criminal law of prosecution. Any slackness displayed in that process will not be in the interest of public at large and therefore as has been pointed out by this Court in the various decisions, which we have referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is our responsibility to ensure that the prosecution agency is reminded of its responsibility and duties in the discharge of its functions effectively and efficiently and ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on effectively and the perpetrators of crime are duly punished by the appropriate Court of law.
In as much as the petitioner only seeks for handling of the case of murder of her deceased husband by the prosecuting agency, namely, the CBI here with utmost earnestness against all the accused who were involved in the crime, we feel that by issuing appropriate directions in this writ petition and by monitoring the same the grievances expressed by the petitioner can be duly redressed and the interest of the public at large can be duly safeguarded. - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1296 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Validity of Tribunal's order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Hearing date not known to assessee - Held that:- When the matter was listed on 11-3-2013, the appellant could not appear, ordinarily the party was to informed about the next date by messenger or through any other mode but if the matter was fixed on 11-3-2013 and the Id. Tribunal posted it on 12-3-2013 and passed ex parte order dismissing the appeal, certainly his rights have been jeopardized by not affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and this being a settled principle of administrative law that no one should be condemned unheard, passing of the ex parte order impugned herein dismissing the appeal of the appellant, has certainly affected his right of hearing. In the facts & circumstances, we find that a reasonable opportunity, as observed, has not been afforded to the appellant - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1295 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s.80-IB(10) denied - profits derived from developing and building a housing project - 'SWRH' and 'S3' projects could not be considered as separate projects undertaken by the assessee as held by revenue - Held that:- The decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Samuha Awas Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 1061 - ITAT PUNE) is clearly applicable in the present case inasmuch as the assessee applied for obtaining completion certificate for the two row houses before 31.03.2008 i.e. on 26.03.2008 and the said application was based on a certificate issued by the Architect. Factually also, the facts on record, supported by the Property Tax bills, Architect's certificate, occupation by users, etc. support the position that prior to 31.03.2008 construction of the two row houses was complete. Pertinently, the completion certificate of PCMC regarding the two row houses in question which is dated 28.06.2012, clearly states that it is issued with effect from 26.03.2008. Therefore, even the PCMC certification supports the position that the construction was complete as on 26.03.2008 which, in our view, is in substantive compliance with the requirements of section 80-IB(10)(a)(i) read with Explanation (ii) thereof.
In so far as the balance of 293 row houses is concerned there is no dispute that the completion certificate has been issued by PCMC prior to 31.03.2008. Therefore, considered in respect of entire 295 units comprised in 'SWRH' project, the date of completion of construction is to be understood as on or before 31.03.2008 thereby complying with the requirement of section 80-IB(10)(a)(i) read with Explanation (ii) thereof. We therefore hold that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act of ₹ 12,76,88,137/- with respect to the profits derived from 'SWRH' project for assessment year 2006-07. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1294 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Anullment of assessment order passed - requirement of issue of notice u/s 143(2) where return filed in pursuance of notice u/s 148 - Held that:- Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on August 29, 2006. Thereafter notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued, in response to which the assessee has also filed an objection with assumption of jurisdiction which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide order dated November 26, 2007 and the assessee was asked to file the return of income - after receipt of return in response to notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act for completing the assessment. If the Assessing Officer is failed to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act, it would vitiate the reassessment proceedings. It makes no difference whether the assessee files a separate return in response to notice under section 148 or 142(1) of the Act or the assessee files a letter stating therein that the return filed earlier may be treated as return filed in response to the notice.
Undeniably after filing of the letter by the assessee with a request to treat the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act as the return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act or section 142(1) of the Act, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer and assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer without issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is invalid and deserves to be annulled. The learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), following this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajeev Sharma [2010 (5) TMI 600 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], annulled the assessment. - No infirmity impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1293 - ITAT CUTTACK
Disallowance of unexplained investment - difference in purchases made by the assessee - Held that:- The burden lay on the Department to prove that the assessee made the purchases. In our opinion no addition can be made merely on the basis of assumption and presumption. There may be various reasons that other party might have shown sales to the assessee and in fact assessee would have not made purchases. Subjection whatever wrong may be, it cannot take the shape of actuality. If the Assessing Officer did not agree with the purchases made by the assessee, the onus is on the Assessing Officer to prove by bringing relevant material that in fact the assessee has made purchases. Merely there is a difference in the reconciliation of the accounts of the suppliers and the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of account. Under these facts and circumstance, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case that the addition can be sustained.
Jurisdiction under section 263 can be invoked if both conditions, i.e., that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If only one of the conditions is satisfied, the jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked. We noted from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. It is apparent from the provisions of section 40A(3) that prior to substitution of this provision by the Finance Act, 2008, with effect from April 1, 2009, this provision does not require that the aggregate of the payment "made to" a person in a day has to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the limit of ₹ 20,000. - there is no violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) and, therefore, there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer. We also noted from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer at page 4 had duly considered the discount given by the assessee and on this account, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 31,458. It is settled law in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court] that unless a view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. No error in the order of the Assessing Officer - order under section 263 is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1292 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of amount paid towards house tax - Duty paid under protest - Held that:- demand of property tax was raised during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, it pertained to the previous year under consideration and the payment for the same has also been made during the year under consideration - Though at the time of hearing it is stated by learned counsel that in the forwarding letter only the assessee has mentioned that the demand raised is contrary to law and the assessee is making payment under protest, however, thereafter, the assessee has not challenged the above demand before any court of law. However, in view of the decision of the hon'ble apex court [1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court], it is evident that even if the assessee has disputed the liability, it will be no bar in allowing the deduction for the same unless and until the assessee got relief in this regard. It is not in dispute that there was no reduction in liability of property tax during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1291 - ITAT DELHI
Suspense, individual and Society - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The issues raised in the ground are fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ACIT vs. Rohtak Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 728 - ITAT DELHI] wherein also the assessee was a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and giving loans as per guidelines of NABARD. If the amount deposited in the said account belong to the various depositors, who intended to open the bank account with the assessee, then the said amount cannot attain the character of 'income' in the hands of the assesee unless it is shown that the said amount has become the income of the assesee. If the said amount does not belong to the assessee and the assessee has utilized the same until the said amount is refunded back, no notional interest can be added to that amount as either the assesee has to pay interst if the said amount is credited to the saving account or the amount itself has to be refunded back in case the account is not opened. There is no question of assessing any notional interest on the said amount.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Suspense interest realized - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Submission of the assessee which is well supported by RBI / NABARD circular dated 17.8.2002 vide para No. 3.1 clearly states that the policy of income recognition should be based on record of recovery and therefore unrealized income should not be taken into profit and loss account by State Co-op Bank / Central Co-op Banks and that the provisions of Section 43D of the Act are clear regarding the recognition of interest income on NPA. The Ld. CIT(A) in our view has thus rightly held that overdue interest not realized during the year and credited to suspense interest account cannot be taken tobe the income of the assessee. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has thus rightly deleted the addition in question. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1290 - ITAT CHENNAI
Capital expenditure or Revenue Expenditure - assessee has incurred huge expenditure in laying cables for providing cable connections to domestic viewers - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the cable laying expenditure was revenue in nature and therefore, deductible while computing the income of the assessee - held that:- even though the cables are laid by the assessee for carrying on business, the cables laid down by the assessee did not satisfy the basic features of a capital asset. The question of enduring benefit in the present case is only "relative". It is related to safeguarding and protection of the cable laid down underground or drawn over the electric poles. If an external agency interferes and the cables are damaged, the assessee has no course of action. The assessee can neither retrieve the cable profitably, nor can it protect the cables by itself. In these circumstances, the cost involved in laying the cables is a sunk cost even though the assessee may get the benefit out of the cable for a period of more than one year. That longevity of the facility alone cannot make the cable as a capital asset in the hands of the assessee. The assessee does not have physical possession of the cable and once laid down, it is gone for all. - cable laying expenditure in the hands of the assessee is revenue in nature. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1289 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of tax under RST Act - During interception of vehicle bills were found to be in same handwriting therefore, presumed to be bogus - Held that:- It is apparent that the owner or person incharge of a vehicle has to have proper documentation and which on demand will necessarily have to be produced by the owner or person incharge of the vehicle. In so far as the present facts are concerned, it bears out from the record that the respondent had all the documents and the documents, which were produced on the spot, clearly showed that the goods were being sent from Delhi and were intended to be sent to Gujarat and therefore, it is merely on assumption and presumption and only because of the bill and vouchers being in the same handwriting, it was alleged that the bills are bogus. Merely because bills and vouchers are in the same handwriting and if the goods are sent by the same firm in different names to be intended for different consignees, then certainly the handwriting on the bills and vouchers would be the same, therefore, merely because the handwriting was same, in my view, it cannot be a basis for imposition of levy of tax, penalty and interest.
It is also clear that not a single document was available so as to come to a conclusion that the goods were meant for being uploaded/sold within the State of Rajasthan, rather all the documents proved otherwise. On perusal of the records, it is also clear that the respondent-assessee submitted a reply on April 12, 1995 and wanted time for verification of consignor and consignee but without providing adequate time, the penalty was levied on April 12, 1995. Even otherwise, without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, the tax, penalty and interest was imposed and therefore, it is not justified and the Tax Board has correctly come to the conclusion that the entire penalty, tax and interest has been levied merely on conjectures and surmises without proving further by the petitioner-assessing officer. - All the documents proved otherwise and since Rajasthan falls in between Delhi and Gujarat, which is proved by all the documents, in my view, the tax, penalty and penalty has rightly been deleted by the DC(A) and approved by the Tax Board. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the two appellate authorities that there is no loss of revenue and documents were proper. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1288 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Valuation - Whether the Tribunal is correct in finding that the value of free issue materials used in the manufacture of sleepers and included in the assessable value would form part of turnover of the manufacturer under section 2(1)(s) of the Act - Held that:- In the order of the Tribunal, the fact that by reference to clauses in the agreement, Tribunal had noticed that fastenings, malleable cast iron inserts and HTS wire (standard) were supplied to the petitioner free of cost. This aspect of the matter is not in dispute. Finally, the cost price that is being paid to the petitioner does not include the value of the free issue material, and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not collected any sales tax and the railways had not paid any amount on the value representing the free issue material. In that view of the matter, and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the sale price for the purpose of section 5 of the Act, is the actual consideration that is received/ receivable by the dealer alone can be the basis for levy of sales tax. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1287 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of CST on transfer of property inter state - whether CST is payable on the component of Central excise paid on such transactions in the event of full reimbursement by the Central Government under its scheme of encouraging "deemed exports" - Held that:- In the absence of scheme/global contract which has been relied upon by Tax Board, and when the learned counsel for the petitioner assessing officer has submitted that the Tax Board, could not have relied upon the said scheme as facts of the said scheme were entirely different and this court is certainly entitled to have a look at the scheme relied upon by the assessee and cannot blindly follow the observation of the Tax Board, particularly when serious challenge has been made since beginning by the Department and, therefore, in the interest of justice, I feel that the terms and conditions of the global contract/scheme which has been relied upon by the Tax Board, needs to be looked by the Tax Board again as the Tax Board is a final fact finding authority and this court cannot express any view on the questions answered by the Tax Board, particularly when the petitioner assessing officer as referred to above is challenging and have challenged the same and when questions of law has been admitted by this court, therefore, unless and until the terms and conditions and the scheme/ global contract is not before the court, the issue cannot be decided. - Matter restored back - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1286 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty under section 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Unaccounted goods - Held that:- penalty has wrongly been deleted by the Tax Board, for the reason that (1) the books of accounts did not contain any entry of the said silver bar weighing 32.895 kilogram found in the custody and possession of the respondent, (2) it is not supported by any bill or evidence relating to the purchase of the said silver bar found in the custody and possession of the respondent at the time of survey, (3) despite adequate opportunity having being granted the respondent pleaded for imposing of penalty, payment of the penalty and release of the goods on the spot, (4) letter dated December 20, 2000 was also filed admitting that the said goods were purchased without bill and that no entry was made in the books of accounts.
Tax Board, was unjustified in merely admitting the claim of the respondent which was put up first time before the DC (A) and in my view, it is an afterthought and ought not to have been plainly admitted and relied upon by the Tax Board. Tax Board is a final fact-finding authority and such a claim ought not to have been admitted merely on the basis of a simple claim. - it is quite apparent that on or before the date of survey with regard to the silver bar weighing 32.895 kilogram the respondent did not have any proper bill or voucher or any other evidence. Rather it was claimed and admitted that they do not have any document relating to silver bar and even there was no entry in the books of accounts, rather the respondent admitted imposition of penalty and even payment of the penalty on the spot. In my view, on these finding no other factor was required to be considered by the Tax Board. - penalty was rightly imposed by the assessing officer, rightly sustained by the DC (A) and wrongly deleted by the Tax Board, and in my view, the order of the Tax Board, deserves to be reversed. Accordingly, the order of the Tax Board, is reversed and that of the assessing officer is sustained. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1285 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Restoration of appeal - Appeal withdrawn by advocate of petitioner on account of misunderstanding - Held that:- Appeal No. 725 of 2002 (from Final Order dated August 30, 2001) was withdrawn by the advocate of the petitioner on account of misunderstanding. This misunderstanding was not without any basis. In fact the Tribunal in its order dated June 29, 2005 in Appeal No. 1579 of 2001 (deposit order dated August 2, 2001) has at the instance of the joint request of the Revenue and the petitioner remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) to decide the appeal on merits. The facts that there is a difference in an appeal from an interim order and an appeal from final order are intricate matters which could not normally be understood by non-lawyers. In these circumstances no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for having failed to ensure that Appeal No. 725 of 2002 is not withdrawn. In these circumstances, it may not be fair for a litigant to suffer on account of lapses on the part of its advocate. - Petitioner undertaken to deposit the amount due - On making of such deposit - Appeal shall be restored - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1284 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the provisions of section 51(7)(b) of the VAT Act, 2005 which provides for imposition of penalty when an attempt to evade the tax is proved and the AETC has imposed penalty by holding that it was the case of reuse of the invoice - Held that:- It emerges that the bill number, value of goods, names of consignee and consignor were mentioned on the GR. The destination of goods was from Moga to Delhi via Mandi Gobindgarh in order to reduce the freight charges to remain competitive in the market. In such circums tances, the Tribunal recorded that there was no attempt to evade tax and the documents could not be said to be ingenuine. The finding of fact in which no perversity could be pointed out, no ground for interference by this court is called for. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants-State and in favour of the assessee - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1283 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of entry tax - penalty under Section 6(2) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 - Held that:- From bare perusal of this provision it appears that a discretion is conferred on the authority to impose/levy penalty not exceeding one and half times the tax. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, we are inclined to reduce the penalty. Learned Government Advocate also has not seriously opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. - Penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - part deposit of penalty in compliance with Section 14(B)(7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 - Held that:- A perusal of the order reveals that order imposing penalty was held to be non-speaking and ex parte and was therefore, remanded to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce material evidence in support of his plea that he is not liable for any penalty. The absence of words, that the impugned order has been set aside or that the appeal is allowed, would not raise an inference that the original order subsists. A perusal of the aforesaid extract leaves no ambiguity that order levying penalty was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, to pass a fresh order. The petitioner, admittedly, deposited ₹ 88,000/- at the time of filing appeal. The appeal having been allowed and order of penalty having been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to refund of ₹ 88,000/-. The mere pendency of the remand case, does not entitle the respondents to retain the amount deposited by the petitioner. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1281 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Failure to comply with the provisions of section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Held that:- A reading of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 makes it clear that it bars the proceedings for winding up of the company or for realization of dues through suit, execution or by adopting coercive measure and for enforcing any security or guarantee against the company alone. In the instant case none of the procedure has been adopted for recovering any amount from the assessee/revisionist. No proceedings have been initiated for realization of the tax dues. It is only by virtue the statutory provision that the assessee/revisionist is obliged to deposit the tax dues and to furnish proof thereof so that its appeal is entertained. The deposit of the tax dues by the assessee/revisionist as such is a voluntary act for which no proceedings much less that of distress have to be adopted. - assessee/revisionist is not entitle to any protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - authorities below have not committed any error in rejecting the appeals of the assessee-revisionist for non-compliance of section 9(1B) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
............
|
