|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 652 Records
-
2006 (8) TMI 577 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed in this behalf, - (i) the amount for which goods are sold or purchased shall include the price of the packing material in which they are packed and any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold, at the time of or before the delivery thereof, other than cost of freight or delivery or cost of installation or the amount realised as trade tax on sale or purchase of goods , when such cost or amount is separately charged (ii) to (iv)... Explanation II of section 2(i) of the Act provides that the cost of the freight could not be a part of turnover in case it is separately charged. Thus, it is on the dealer to prove that the freight was separately charged from the customers. In the present case, the applicant failed to prove that freight was separately charged. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 576 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t bone meal cannot be said to be erroneous, and does not require any interference. I do not find any substance in the argument, that the Tribunal ought to have given opportunity to the applicant to furnish form C . This question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. No such plea was raised before the Tribunal. Under the aforesaid provision interest can be charged under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. So far as question of liability of interest is concerned, the issue is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Kajaria Ceramics Limited v. State of U.P. 2009 20 VST 964 (All) App 2003 UPTC 750, in which the validity of the Finance Act, 2000 by which section 9(2B) has been inserted with retrospective effect has been upheld. Under the aforesaid provision, interest can be charged under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the reasons stated above, all the three revisions have no merit. In the result, all the three revisions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 575 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egistered dealers, only entrusted the tea to the auctioneer for sale and there was no sale between the planters and the auctioneer. Auctioneers being registered dealers under the Act, collected sales tax from the petitioner treating the sales to the petitioner as first sales and so much so petitioner who has paid tax at the first sale point on purchases from the auctioneer, cannot simultaneously contend that the very same transaction is second sale to them attracting turnover tax. In such circumstances and in view of the factual position that there were no sales between the planters and the auctioneers and the auctioneers conducted sale as first sellers collecting sales tax on tea which is taxable at the point of first sale in the State under the First Schedule to the KGST Act, petitioner 39 s sales are obviously second sales liable to turnover tax. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the Tribunal 39 s order. Accordingly, the sales tax revision case is dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would have been possible within a reasonable time from the time of seizure. It is also to be noted that the jeep travelled beyond the destination point, which is tried to be explained by the petitioner as on account of mistake on the part of the driver. Even though we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that there was likelihood of evasion of tax, but for the seizure, we still feel the maximum penalty levied and sustained by the Tribunal is not called for because petitioner is entitled to at least the benefit of doubt for the reason that the officer did not have a case that the liquor is illicit and he released it on furnishing security. Since the only legitimate source of liquor in the State is a Government Corporation and since petitioner produced invoice, we reduce the penalty to equal amount of tax as against twice the tax amount sustained by the Tribunal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Sales tax revision is allowed by modifying the order of the Tribunal as above.
-
2006 (8) TMI 573 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... officer on the ground that the order passed under section 22 of the Act was ex parte and the claim of the applicant was that the goods imported, were the electrical goods and not the cables, etc. In any view of the matter, for adjudication of the claim of deduction under section 3F(2), nature of transaction required examination which was not possible in the proceedings under section 22 of the Act. In the proceedings under section 22 of the Act, only mistake apparent on the face of record, can be rectified. The issue, which requires investigation and examination of the facts, argument and where two opinions are possible is outside the purview of section 22 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Concrete Spun Pipe Works v. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector-V, Kanpur reported in 1969 24 STC 48. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 572 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... much after the year for which the assessment in question arose. However, even though the respondent 39 s argument that the item is exempt as organic manure is unacceptable, we are of the view that the item will fall under entry 24 of the Third Schedule referred to above which provided for exemption to all coir and coir products other than rubberised coir fibre foam. If all coir products are granted exemption, we see no reason why a by-product or dust product should not be declined exemption. The intention of the Legislature to grant exemption to anything and everything purely made from coir and coconut husk, is clear from the above entry and all what is intended to be taxed is rubberised coir products. In such circumstances, respondent 39 s product which is a by-product of coconut husk, is entitled to exemption under entry 24 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal for the reasons stated above and dismiss the S.T. revision case.
-
2006 (8) TMI 571 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to it, the grievance of the applicant would be justified. The Tribunal has justified the remand of the case by observing that the applicant should be given opportunity to explain the said letter, in which I do not see any error. For the reasons stated above, both the revisions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed. The applicant is directed to appear before the assessing authority on August 21, 2006. It is made clear that no fresh notice will be issued to the applicant. The assessing authority on that day, start the hearing of the case or may fix any other date to complete the assessment. The assessing authority is directed to provide proper opportunity to the applicant before passing the assessment orders and the applicant is directed to co-operate in the assessment proceedings. The aforesaid direction will be relevant, in case if the assessment proceedings have not already taken up and completed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 570 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner falls under sub-clause (g) of the notification entitling for exemption. The Tribunal held that the petitioner does not fall under sub-clause (g) probably under the impression that arrack is an item falling under sub-clause (b) of notification which provides for turnover tax at all points on Indian-made foreign liquor, and foreign liquor. The items on which turnover tax at all points are retained under sub-clause (b) under S.R.O. No. 1401/92 are foreign liquor, and Indian-made foreign liquor. Those are entries 53 and 54 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act which specifically excludes arrack. Since petitioner was a dealer in arrack for the year 1992-93, petitioner is covered by subclause (g) and by virtue of the above decision the petitioner is not liable to pay any turnover tax on sales turnover of arrack. Therefore we allow the sales tax revision by vacating the order of the Tribunal and restoring the order of the first appellate authority, for the reasons stated above.
-
2006 (8) TMI 569 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of goods made against prior orders for export. Petitioner has no case, and cannot have a case, that they have purchase order for export of green tea leaves, which is a perishable commodity with no consumer use. So long as green tea leaves are not exported, and what is exported is manufactured tea, petitioner is liable to pay tax under section 5A on the purchase turnover of green tea leaves consumed in the production of manufactured tea exported. The decision relied on by the petitioner does not lay down that green tea leaves and manufactured tea are one and the same. All what is stated is that green tea leaves also attract tax under the Act as the same falls within the meaning of tea . In fact, the liability for sales tax for green tea leaves and manufactured tea are synchronised in entry 150(i) to prevent spiralling tax effect on the ultimate product, namely, manufactured tea. In view of the above findings, we dismiss the tax revision by affirming the order of the Tribunal.
-
2006 (8) TMI 568 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... above referred decision, that the policy of the Legislature should be understood that a stranger auction purchaser must be protected against the vicissitudes of the fortunes of the suit (caprice of the higher authorities of Commercial Tax Department in the contest of the present case) otherwise such sales would not attract customers and it would be detrimental to the interest of the exchequer. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the writ petition is required to be allowed as prayed for and the respondents be directed to convey the property purchased by the petitioner in the auction, pursuant to the notice referred to earlier. We also deem it appropriate to direct that the action of the third respondent in cancelling the auction requires an examination by the State. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to examine the matter and take appropriate action against the third respondent. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 567 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contention of the applicant to be correct but it has remanded the matter on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has not expressed any opinion on this issue. Similarly, the remand on other aspects also was unnecessarily made by the Tribunal. In my opinion a remand order should not be readily made, and it should only be made when for very strong reasons the authority cannot itself dispose of the matter on merits. It seems that these remand orders were made by the authorities merely to get rid of the case so that the authority could avoid going into the matter deeply and deciding the issue once and for all. This kind of attitude is to be deprecated. For the reasons stated above, order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide both the appeals on merit in accordance to law. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to decide both the appeals on merit in accordance to the law.
-
2006 (8) TMI 566 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... outside the steel casting. The question is whether there is substantial addition after the casting work, so that the product becomes commercially different. The department has no case that the petitioner has done any such major improvement on the steel casting and the receipts analysed in the assessment do not disclose it. However, if substantial improvement is done on steel casting, then probably it becomes iron and steel product and can be called a metallic product only when modifications including addition of other metals are done to the product. The pattern of business is stated to be the same and it is seen from the detailed order issued by the assessing officer himself for the year 2001-02, the petitioner 39 s claim is seen accepted. In such circumstances, we find the product sold by the petitioner is only steel casting and therefore we reverse the order of the Tribunal and direct assessment of the product under item No. 2(ii)(h) of the Second Schedule to the KGST Act.
-
2006 (8) TMI 565 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sales turnover, we have no doubt in our mind that the assessing officer is free to consider what exactly is the nature of receipt. If it is a net credit in the form of an income, it may even be possible for the officer to take it as income, gross up the turnover as representing unaccounted sales and assess the same. In this case, the officer has taken the amount as unaccounted sales, which is probably the minimum damage that could be caused to the petitioner by virtue of section 12 of the Act. In other words, we uphold this addition as a necessary consequence of the petitioner 39 s failure to explain the receipt in his account. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the first appellate authority thoroughly went wrong in casting burden on the assessing officer to establish the amount received by the petitioner as sales turnover of goods and so much so, the Tribunal rightly reversed the order and restored the assessment. Sales tax revision case is accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 564 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the last judgments on this issued being the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Bihar reported in 2002 2 PLJR 553. In the said case, the earlier judgment in respect of the sales tax dues and its recovery from director has also been noticed in the case of Damodar Prasad Nathani v. State of Bihar since reported in 1999 1 PLJR 522. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation and/or reservation in cancelling all proceedings as against the two petitioners in both the cases. The two petitioners cannot be proceeded against in any manner in the aforesaid certificate proceedings save and except that they would be the authorised representative to represent the company but beyond that they are not in any manner to be personally liable for the affairs of the company as pending scrutiny before the certificate court. In that view of the matter, the proceedings as against the petitioners are quashed and both the writ applications are allowed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 563 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ic. However, we feel it may not be correct on our side to decide the issue without going into further details of the industry, the raw materials used and to consider the difference, if any, between plastic and polycarbonate. We therefore, feel the matter should be reconsidered by the Tribunal after calling for particulars of raw materials used in both the industry and the constituents of the products and to apply the appropriate rate of tax. In fact, similar industry engaged in production of feeding bottle for export in the Special Economic Zone is situated at Kakkanad and there will be no difficulty for the Department to collect information and help the Tribunal while deciding the matter. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal on this issue and direct the Tribunal to decide the issue on rate of tax afresh after hearing both sides. A final decision will be rendered by the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment.
-
2006 (8) TMI 562 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te rate mentioned in entry 87 and a hotel/restaurant referred to in entry 40 buying such items from registered dealers and making resales will be entitled to second sale exemption. A Full Bench of this court in Lazarus Alosious v. State of Kerala 2006 144 STC 210 2005 2 KLT 604, held that soda and cola sold in bar-attached hotels attracts tax at twenty per cent. We do not think the case can be any different so far as mineral water also is concerned. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal confirming the assessment of soda and mineral water under entry 87 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act and dismiss the S.T. Rev. case on this issue. So far as the next issue, i.e., assessment of purchase turnover of ice from unregistered dealers under section 5A is concerned, the issue is covered by the decision of this court in State of Kerala v. Cochin Shipyard Limited 2006 148 STC 332 2006 3 KLT 380. Following the said decision, we dismiss the S.T. Rev. case on this issue also.
-
2006 (8) TMI 561 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here specifically mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. The inclusion of telephones in entry 120 along with other sound transmitting equipment, gramaphones, dictaphones, etc., is not a specific inclusion of electronic telephone. Therefore the telephone referred to in entry 120 renumbered as entry 134 is ordinary telephone and not the electronic push button telephone. In that view of the matter, electronic push button telephone is an electronic instrument falling under entry 49 later renumbered as entry 55 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. The petitioner is therefore entitled to concessional rate of tax so long as the notification was in force. However, for the period, electronic push button telephone enjoyed concessional rate of tax under the notification, the petitioner is entitled to the same and for the other period, the petitioner has to be assessed on electronic push button telephone under the entry provided for electronic goods. Tax revisions are allowed as above.
-
2006 (8) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was paid by the customer since railway receipt was in the name of the dealer and liability to pay the freight was of the dealer, it is deemed to have been paid on behalf of the dealer by the purchaser. Freight incurred for transporting the goods from outside the State of U.P. to inside the State of U.P. was inward freight made prior to the sale and, thus, it would be a part of the turnover. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Ramapati Tewari Jainath Tewari 2005 UPTC 76 and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Sharma Coal Co., Azamgarh 2008 16 VST 517 (All) App 2005 UPTC 1165. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Appeal Nos. 865 of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 and 866 of 1992 for the assessment year 1988-89 filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax before the Tribunal stand allowed. The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11(8) of the Act.
-
2006 (8) TMI 559 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... same on the dealer. 39 4.. We respectfully agree with the observations made by the Bench in the case of Sivalik Collulose Ltd. 1992 UPTC 1. Although the impugned order may have a prospective operation but such an order which has been passed with retrospective effect cannot be sustained to that extent. In the present case the Tribunal has also recorded finding that there was no valid reason for cancelling the recognition certificate in addition to the view that the recognition certificate cannot be cancelled retrospectively. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the Revision No. 828 of 1995 is liable to be rejected. In the result Revision No. 808 of 1995 is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated December 23, 1994 in so far as it had allowed Second Appeal No. 458 of 1991 is set aside. Revision No. 828 of 1995 is dismissed and the order of the Tribunal passed in Second Appeal No. 629 of 1991 is maintained. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emand notice was issued, which is the subject-matter of the writ petition on the basis that the lottery tickets were goods and the sale of which were liable to be taxed, no amount was collected from the petitioner towards tax and the same is pending consideration before this court. At the time of admission, the court has also granted interim stay of all further proceedings of the first respondent pursuant to the notice dated July 8, 2004. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunrise 2006 3 VST 151 2006 145 STC 576 2006 5 JT 168 (SC) referred to supra and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. 2001 123 STC 623 explaining the principle of prospective overruling, I am of the considered view that the writ petition has to be allowed by setting aside the order of demand, which is impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
............
|
