|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 1233 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 923 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - whether Tribunal could have directed pre-deposit of the amount of excise duty once it set aside the adjudicating authority’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration - Held that:- once the Tribunal remits the matter for consideration, there is no need of pre-deposit of the amount as no demand stands. In these circumstances the direction of the Tribunal cannot be supported in law at all. This Court has considered the submissions. The show cause notice issued to the assessee culminated into a demand of penalty. The order of the Tribunal had the effect of setting at nought the determination of the adjudicating authority fixing the duty and penalty liability. In these circumstances, the Tribunal by no stretch of imagination could have directed the very same amount to be deposited - Court is conscious of the fact that that appeal is pending. Having regard to these contentions of the appellant, it is the impugned order has to be set aside to the extent the appellant is aggrieved. The direction to pre-deposit the amounts demanded, made by the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 922 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Addition being accrued interest on advances - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- The Tribunal endorsed the finding of the CIT (Appeals) relying upon its decision for the assessment year 2004-2005. The Tribunal’s finding would show that it had also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001 (5) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA).
This Court also noticed that having regard to the terms of the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, an award could not be enforceable. The same was the case with the foreign award; the Court had to first adjudicate as to the enforceability.
In these circumstances, the assessee’s right to interest was a mere claim, till the date of the judgment of the Court dated 4th December, 2006. In other words, the right to interest crystallized after the judgment of the Court. Till then, it was inchoate. For this reason, the Tribunal’s finding cannot be faulted with. Decided against revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 921 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Import of pulses (Toor Whole) - unsafe or sub-standard food - Held that:- When import of sub-standard materials is prohibited testing is required to be done at the point of entry into India. Any certificate of a prior date is of no consequence. It is possible that the said consignment was in perfect condition on the date on which samples were drawn for analysis by SGS Myanmar Limited but subsequently deteriorated in course of transit. Even in such circumstances, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue mandatory orders for clearance of a consignment that is found sub-standard when the same landed in India.
Instructions contained in the circular of the Senior Inspecting Officer of the Food Authority cannot, in my view, be enforced by initiation of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The circular has been issued in response to representations for relaxation of standards. The prayer for relaxation of prescribed standards was apparently turned down having regard to the object of ensuring the mandate of safe food imports into India.
An importer can be allowed facilities for improving the quality of foodgrains, at the sole discretion of the Authorized Officer of Food Authority who is required to ensure that clearing/sorting of food grains can be done by the importer strictly under the supervision of the Customs in customs bonded area. - Decided against the petitioner.
-
2012 (9) TMI 920 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Denial of refund claim - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - High Court admitted the appeal of Revenue against the decision of Tribunal wherein Tribunal held that assessee is eligible for the refund of unutilised accumulated credit on opting out of Modvat Scheme excluding the reversed credit involved in inputs, work in process and finished goods lying in stock on the date of opting out of Modvat Scheme. High Court admitted the appeal on following substantial questions of law:-
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the Respondent and holding that the Respondent is entitled for refund in cash when in fact and as a matter of fact the Respondent failed to prove that the said accumulated balance of Cenvat credit is due to the duty free clearance of the goods exported?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the Respondent for refund claim, when the Respondent failed to discharge their burden under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in following the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2006 (7) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE)] when the facts in the said case and that in the present case are distinct and different and the ratio in the said judgment does not apply to the present case?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of CESTAT is contrary to the evidences on record and hence perverse?
-
2012 (9) TMI 919 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - Non maintenance of separate account - Held that:- In respect of supplies made by a manufacturer against international competitive bidding by availing full exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Sl. No. 91) the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 are not applicable in view of the provisions of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6. When the appellant had wrongly paid the amount under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and had requested the Department for its recredit and thereafter had reminded the Department for the recredit and when in pursuance of their request for recredit, the same had been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20-4-2009 just because the appellant had taken the recredit on their own on 31-3-2009, there would be no justification for imposition of penalty. When the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20-4-2009 had permitted the recredit of ₹ 9,80,354/- this credit would be treated as available for the month of March, 2009 and hence there would be no excess utilization of credit during that month. In view of this, the cenvat credit demand and penalty does not appear to be sustainable - Stay granted.
-
2012 (9) TMI 918 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - whether the appellant would be eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Saree Guard - Held that:- “Saree Guard” is fitted with two wheelers as per the requirement of Rule 123 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules and two wheelers are cleared on payment of duty on the value which includes the value of Saree Guard. In view of this, the appellant have a prima facie case in their favour. The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is, therefore, waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2012 (9) TMI 917 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of exemption claim - Captive consumption - Whether or not the appellant is entitled to exemption from excise duty in respect of MS angles, MS channels, joist etc. manufactured by him and captively consumed in the factory of production - Held that:- All capital goods and specified inputs manufactured and captively used within the factory of production are eligible to exemption from excise duty. In the instant case the benefit of notification has been denied to the appellant on the ground that MS angles, MS channels, joist etc. do not fall within definition of capital goods or components of capital goods or inputs; that aforesaid goods have been used for manufacture of coal, elevator, chamber separator, technological structure of gasifier which is a part of pre-heating furnace and since the goods in question have been used for manufacture of support structure those cannot even be termed as inputs eligible for the benefit under Notification.
Adjudicating authority as also the Commissioner (Appeals) in our view is prima facie flawed for the reason that he has failed to appreciate that the coal elevator, chamber separator and coal gasifier are essential component of the production unit of the appellant. Undisputedly the goods in question have been used for purpose as such prima facie it appears that the goods have been used in relation to the manufacture of final product of the assessee. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of Exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E. - Stay granted.
-
2012 (9) TMI 916 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Denial of rebate claim - respondent cleared export goods on payment of duty @ 10% in terms of Notification No. 2/2008-C.E., dated 1-3-2008 as amended, whereas they were clearing goods for home consumption on payment of duty @ 4% in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended - original authority sanctioned the rebate claims to the extent of duty paid @ 4% and allowed recredit of balance amount in their Cenvat credit account - Held that:- export goods shall be assessed to duty in the same manner as the goods cleared for home consumption are assessed. Further the classification and rate of duty should be as stated in schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with any exemption notification and/or Central Excise Rules, 2002. This C.B.E. & C. Instructions clearly stipulate that applicable effective rate of duty will be as per the exemption notification. The said instruction is issued specifically with respect to sanctioning rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods and therefore the whole issue will have to be examined in the light of these instructions.
The Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended prescribed effective rate of duty @ 4%. As such it is not correct to say that it is a case of applicability of two notifications only and assessee, as exporter, is at liberty to choose any one notification which is beneficial to him. In this case, Notification No. 2/2008-C.E. providing for General Tariff Rate of duty and Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. providing for effective rate of duty have the effect of prescribing General Tariff rate and effective rate of duty respectively and therefore they have to be read together as stipulated in para 4.1 of Part-I of Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual. In fact, this confusion has arisen since in this case the General Tariff rate was reduced through Notification when special economic stimulus package was announced in 2008 by Government to deal with ongoing economic recession.
There is no merit in the contentions of the respondent that they are eligible to claim rebate of duty paid @ 10% i.e. tariff rate ignoring the effective rate of 4%. - adjudicating original authority was legally right in holding that duty was payable @ 4% in terms of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended and rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4% in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing rebate of duty paid in general tariff rate @ 10% in terms of Notification No. 2/2008-C.E., ignoring the above discussed C.B.E. & C. Instructions.
W.e.f. 1-7-2000, the concept of transaction value was introduced for valuation of goods under Central Excise Act and therefore said Circular issued prior to introduction of transaction value concept, cannot be strictly applied after 1-7-2000. As per para 3(b)(ii) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, the rebate sanctioning authority has to satisfy himself that rebate claim is in order before sanctioning the same. If the claim is in order he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or in part. - original authority has rightly restricted the rebate claim to the extent of duty paid @ 4% in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The amount of duty paid in excess of duty payable at effective rate of 4% as per Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. on the exported goods, is also rightly treated as voluntary deposit made by applicant with the Government
Government cannot retain the said amount paid without any authority of law. Therefore, the original authority has rightly allowed the re-credit of said excess paid amount of duty in their Cenvat credit account - impugned order-in-original is not legal and proper and therefore is not sustainable as per law - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Exemption under Notification 64/88-Cus - Assessee did not provide free treatment to 40% OPD patients during the years 1995 and 1996 - notice gives the ground that “they have not disclosed the details and addresses of the patients treated free in OPD” - Difference of opinion - Majority order - Held that:- Appellant while replying to the notice was very much aware that percentages of patients treated free of cost had to be furnished to prove that the condition in the notification was satisfied and the same was furnished in reply. The defence replies furnished on 5-12-2000 and gist of submissions made on 19-1-2005 make this position very clear. However the appellants in replies to the adjudicating officer have furnished replies with reference to position up to 1994 only and not later.
The certificates issued by DGHS at the time of import of the goods are not taken on record. - The letter dated 2-8-2000 addressed by the appellant to DGHS has not been taken on record and the letter dated 3-11-2000 from DGHS stating that the CDECs have been cancelled is not furnished to the appellant. - The issue as to the point of time up to which the continuing obligation shall continue is not examined with reference to the nature of goods imported and the decisions of various Courts on the issue - In the event of the exemption under Notification 64/88-Cus. being denied to them there is a need to examine whether the appellants were eligible for exemption under Notification 65/86 or any other alternate exemption as would have been available and where the eligibility can be determined with reasonable certainty at this point of time.
Case should not be remitted back for making enquiries with the police station or for cross-examination of any official from DGHS at this late point of time because it is not the view of any individual officer that matters in such issues but of the organization as reflected in records. The case should be decided on evidence as disclosed by records. - treating 40% of the outdoor patients was a condition not possible to be complied with because adequate number of poor patients did not turn up. The argument is repugnant to common sense. Further the notification did not say that 40% of the patients should be poor and they should be treated free of cost. The condition was only that 40% of the outdoor patients (without mentioning any criterion) should have been treated free of cost. There is no impossibility in complying with this condition. Further it is strange that the appellant hospital did not face such problem before the import of goods but states that they found this condition impossible to be complied with after import of the goods. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT
Entitlement to deducted under Section 43-B - Held that:- There is not dispute that the assessee has paid tax which was calculated on estimation under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. In the circumstances, Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, squarely applies. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Club membership fee for employees - disallowance u/s 37 - Held that:- A series of judgements have been passed by High Courts holding that club membership fees for employees incurred by the assessee is business expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We also find that none of the decisions have been challenged in this Court. Even otherwise, we are of the view that it is a pure business expense.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 913 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - VSAT, leaseline and transaction charges - Held that:- there is no bifurcation of the amounts of VSAT, lease line and transaction charges. In the case of CIT vs. Angel Broking Ltd (2014 (5) TMI 584 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), the Hon'ble High Court held that VSAT and lease line charges paid to the Stock Exchange are not paid in consideration of technical services. Therefore, there is no need for deducting tax. The same principles were reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Stock and Bond Trading Company in [2011 (10) TMI 172 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein VSAT charges, NSE lease line charges and transaction charges were considered and held against the Revenue following the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Angel Broking Ltd (2009 (12) TMI 498 - ITAT MUMBAI). The same principles were reiterated in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd [2011 (10) TMI 24 - Bombay High Court]. To the extent of VSAT, lease line charges the Revenue did not even contest. Even though the Hon'ble Court held that the transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange constitute fees for technical services on bonafide belief it was considered that the disallowance cannot be made in that year as the Revenue did not proceed on the footing that assessee is not liable to deduct the tax at source after introduction of the provisions. Since the CIT (A) has only given partial relief of Rs..2,50,000/-, after considering the ITAT orders in the cases of Kotak Securities ltd [2008 (8) TMI 592 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Angel Broking Ltd [2009 (12) TMI 498 - ITAT MUMBAI], we are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the order of the CIT (A). - Decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitration clause - territorial criterion / principle - Scope of Arbitration Act, 1996 - Performance of the agreement - English Arbitration Law was made applicable - Maintainability of appeal against the Foreign Awards - Decision of constitutional bench of Supreme Court - Held that:- Arbitration Act, 1996 has accepted the territoriality principle which has been adopted in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Section 2(2) makes a declaration that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitrations which take place within India. We are of the considered opinion that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would have no application to International Commercial Arbitration held outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In our opinion, the provisions contained in Arbitration Act, 1996 make it crystal clear that there can be no overlapping or intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
With utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the conclusions recorded in the judgments of this Court in Bhatia International [2002 (3) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Venture Global Engineering [2008 (1) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. In our opinion, the provision contained in Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is not in conflict with any of the provisions either in Part I or in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In a foreign seated international commercial arbitration, no application for interim relief would be maintainable under Section 9 or any other provision, as applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to all arbitrations which take place in India. Similarly, no suit for interim injunction simplicitor would be maintainable in India, on the basis of an international commercial arbitration with a seat outside India.
Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is applicable only to all the arbitrations which take place within the territory of India.
The judgment in Bhatia International [2002 (3) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] was rendered by this Court on 13th March, 2002. Since then, the aforesaid judgment has been followed by all the High Courts as well as by this Court on numerous occasions. In fact, the judgment in Venture Global Engineering [2008 (1) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has been rendered on 10th January, 2008 in terms of the ratio of the decision in Bhatia International [2002 (3) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Thus, in order to do complete justice, we hereby order, that the law now declared by this Court shall apply prospectively, to all the arbitration agreements executed hereafter.
-
2012 (9) TMI 911 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Levy of tax on sale of goods in course of inter-state trade and commerce - Claim of concessional rate under the Notification No. S.O. 27 dated January 30, 1993 rejected – Whether the notification has exempted sales covered under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) or both - Held that:- The petitioner's contented that the sale in question was the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of the articles which have been notified in the notification dated January 30, 1993 - Notification No. S.O. 40, dated February 26, 1992 nowhere has restricted itself to either of the provisions under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 8 and this notification in an unambiguous and clear language declared that the reduced rate of tax will be applicable to the sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce of the articles mentioned in the notification - the State also could not dispute this position and fairly admitted that this notification applies to sub-sections (1) and (2) both.
The Tribunal, instead of reading the notification as such and finding out what is the effect of the notification, proceeded astray and tried to find out what the notification should have contained - when the statute, rule or any notification is unambiguously clear in its language, then there was no need to look into other aspect as to how the notification should have been framed – in State of Rajasthan and Another Versus Sarvotam Vegetables Products (and other appeals) [1996 (4) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it has been held that Sub-section (5) of section 8 confers the power of exemption upon the State Government - As is well-known, almost every taxing enactment contains such a provision - The exemption under section 8(5) can be granted either with reference to dealers or class of dealers or with reference to goods or classes of goods. The exemption can be total or partial - It can also be subject to such condition as may be prescribed in that behalf - there is no condition in the notification and there could not have been any condition of producing form C or D for sales covered under sub-section (2) - petitioner's sale is not falling under sub-section (1) of section 8 and is falling under sub-section (2) of section 8 and since the notification applies to the sales under sub-section (2) of section 8 fully, then in that situation the petitioner's sale/transaction is fully covered by the notification dated January 30, 1993 and the petitioner was liable to pay tax as provided by the notification and was liable to pay tax at four per cent only and not as levied by the impugned order – thus, the order of the ACIT, In-charge, Jamshedpur Division is set aside – Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2012 (9) TMI 910 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether the Commissioner could have opined that the turnover of the assessee relating to laying of steel pipes in the course of execution of work for M/s. BWSSB and could have brought within the scope of entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as composite contract or it should have been gone into entry 20(ii) of the Schedule, as the works contract involving laying of steel pipes other than for either plumbing or drainage facility?
Whether suo motu order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional power under section 22A of the Act, was not barred in terms of sub-section (3) of section 23A of the Act?
Held that:- On a careful examination of the works contract awarded by the BWSSB, it can be concluded that the contract entered into between the appellant and BWSSB is a composite contract of not only laying of the pipes, but also to do other civil works like construction of the bridges, construction of pipe saddle supports, construction of the valve chambers and RCC overhead tanks, encasing the pipes with the steel mesh, trenching and excavating along the routes. Hence, the works contract entered into by the appellant has to be treated as a composite contract involving two or more of the above categories of works falling under entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is held against the appellant.
The Commissioner has taken suo motu revision under section 22A(2) of the Act and order has been passed on July 2, 2009. The appeal order dated December 12, 2003 merged with the revisional order dated February 24, 2007 and the Commissioner has passed the revisional order within a period of four years as required under section 22A(3) of the Act. There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that the revisional order passed by the Commissioner is barred by limitation. Hence, issue No. 2 is also held against the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 909 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Scheme, 1997 - eligible unit - Interest on delay refund - Held that:- Refund is required to be made within 90 days and if refund is made beyond 90 days of the refund if due and if the same is delayed, simple interest at the rate of one percentum per month is payable.
The impugned order denying interest is against the plain statutory provision of section 32 and the same is accordingly set aside. Claim for interest due to the petitioner be worked out in accordance with section 32 of the Act within three months from the date of this order. The petitioner may appear before the concerned Superintendent of Taxes for further proceedings on December 12, 2012. W.P.allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 908 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Non service of notice - Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- Perusal of annexure P4 shows that registered A.D. notice sent initially was returned back as the firm was closed. No notice was sent at the registered office of the company at New Delhi. Order dated April 13, 2006 was, thus, passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company to put forward its case. The appeal filed came up for hearing after a period of six years and notice was issued to the petitioner-company again at the same address at Rohtak of the counsel and not at the registered office of the company at New Delhi, which is clear from annexure P3. The counsel had not appeared before the committee on February 22, 2012, the date fixed for hearing and the manager of the petitioner-company appeared and prayed for some time but the said request was declined and the order passed by respondent No. 2 was maintained. Since vide the impugned order serious civil consequences have visited the petitioner, it is entitled for a proper hearing. There was no appearance on its behalf and the matter was never decided on the merits but on the basis of the record of the respondents. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to an opportunity of hearing before passing any order against it. W.P. allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 907 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether it is permissible for the assessee to show the discount given by a separate credit note subsequently and claim deduction even though the said discount is not shown in the tax invoice or sale bill ?
Held that:- Ratio laid down in Southern Motors' case [2008 (7) TMI 862 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] does not prohibit the issuance of credit note subsequent to the sale bill. It is held that such modification in the sale bill is permitted if it is done within six months from the date of sale transaction. In Kitchen Appliances' case [2011 (7) TMI 1051 - Karnataka High Court] the issue was whether rule 3(2)(c) and rule 31 of the Rules are inconsistent and are in conflict with each other. The issue whether the credit note could be issued separately after issuance of sale bill was not under the consideration in the said case. The ratio laid down by this court in the case of Reliance Industries [ 2010 (2) TMI 1116 - Karnataka High Court] squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we answer the question of law against the Revenue.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for fresh consideration by giv ing opportunity to the appellant/assessee to prove that the discount shown in the credit bills has been really extended to the customers.
-
2012 (9) TMI 906 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether upon a correct interpretation of section 15-1A, the Tribunal was justified in holding that additional tax was exigible on the sale of goods covered by entry 18 of Schedule C, Part I? - Held that: - sales in question are goods covered under entry 18, Part I, Schedule C. The second proviso to section 15-1A specifically provides that in calculating the additional tax payable by the dealer, the tax payable on sales covered by entry 18, Part I, Schedule C shall not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in including the sales covered under entry 18, Part I, Schedule C, while computing the additional tax payable under section 15-1A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act - decided in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 905 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether even in the absence of a provision under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for forfeiture of excess tax collected by a registered dealer, forfeiture could be ordered by recourse to the provisions under the 1957 Act?
Held that:- Forfeiture being a process requiring a substantive provision and in the absence of any provision in the CST Act authorizing forfeiture of excess tax collected by a dealer but not remitted to the Revenue, no forfeiture could be ordered by the Revenue by reference to provisions of the State Sales Tax Act, in this case the 1957 Act.
Provisions of the CST Act enable application of the local sales tax law as to the procedure in regard to assessment, collection of tax and enforcement of payment of tax and this regime "takes in the scheme for forfeiture of excess tax collected and for reimbursement of the same to the buyers from whom it is collected
-
2012 (9) TMI 904 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... v. State of U.P. reported in 1979 44 STC 42 (SC); 1979 118 ITR 326 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 621, so also, judgments of this court in Assam Roller Flour Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in 1999 116 STC 585 (Raj); 3 VAT Reporter 165, held that the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to sit over the order of DLSC and reduce the exemption from the tax liability granted to the respondent-assessee. In my opinion, the concurrent finding given by both the authorities below does not require any interference. Learned Tax Board, Ajmer, has followed various judgments of this court as well as judgment of the honourable Supreme Court for holding that the assessing authority has exceeded its jurisdiction and it cannot be permitted to sit over the order of the DLSC. In my opinion, there is no error in the order impugned, therefore, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in these revision petitions. Consequently, all the above revision petitions are hereby dismissed.
............
|
