|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 873 Records
-
2010 (1) TMI 1148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether an assessee would be entitled to the adjustment of tax while they pay the sales tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to the extent of tax paid under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 or not?
Held that:- There is no dispute that the respondent-assessee is a dealer in automobiles and they had imported automobiles from other States and also paid the entry tax in terms of section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. If that be the position, in view of section 4 of the said Act, their liability under the TNGST Act is reduced to the extent of tax paid under the Entry Tax Act.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1147 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether the proceedings under section 21(2) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act is without any material?
Held that:- Perusal of the order of the Additional Commissioner reveals that there was no material on the basis of which belief has been formed that tax has been wrongly assessed on the liquid glucose except that according to his view the correct rate of tax has not been applied by the assessing authority and the order of the Tribunal is subject-matter of consideration before this court. The assessing authority in the notice under section 21 of the Act has also not recorded any reason on the basis of which belief of escaped turnover has been formed.
Thus the proceedings under section 21(2) of the Act is without any material on the basis of which belief of escaped assessment could be formed, namely, that the tax on the liquid glucose has been wrongly assessed to tax. W.P. allowed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1146 - KERALA HIGH COURT
When the petitioner's remedy of filing an appeal is barred, can he invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Held that:- The reliefs as sought for in the writ petition are reliefs which ordinarily could be granted by the appellate authority. Therefore, there is no extraordinary situation for invoking the power under article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if this writ petition is filed within the period of limitation. This court would have declined to exercise jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. If that be so, there is an added ground as to why it will not entertain the writ petition. When admittedly such remedy is available, but not availed. Resultantly, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1145 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether the price declared before customs authorities is much less than the floor rate fixed?
Held that:- Argument of the appellant cannot be accepted as the basis for challenging the validity of circular issued by the Commissioner fixing the price because it is for the customs authorities to examine whether invoice price or the declared price for payment of duty is right. In fact the correct procedure to fix the price for timber for the purpose of collection of advance tax is to collect from the market the prevailing retail market price at a given time and reduce therefrom the dealer margins to fix the dealer's price which is the price at which advance tax could be collected. As we have already observed going by the current market price of varieties of imported timber for which the Commissioner has fixed floor rate price for the purpose of payment of advance tax, the price fixed cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary, more so when the appellant has no case that sales are made at below the floor rate fixed by the Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1144 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the petitioner-assessee for the years 1994-95 and 1997-98 is liable to pay tax at the rate of 16 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, or at eight per cent?
Held that:- As far as the application of clarification dated February 27, 1995, which was issued prior to insertion of section 28A into the Act 60 of 1987 was introduced with effect from November 6, 1997 is concerned, we may point out that such clarification has no legal backing and therefore, it cannot be put against the assesse even though it was made at the instance of the assessee himself.
As to whether the clarification issued after the amendment, viz., July 7, 1997 can be of any benefit to the assessee, this question has not been considered by the authorities below, apart from the question as to which of the entry would be applicable to the case on hand as contended by the learned counsel for the assessee was also not considered, we set aside the order on that ground and remit the matter to the assessing officer for consideration as to whether the commodity in question, viz., electronic gas stove ignitor/lighters is liable to tax in terms of entry 36 of Part C of the First Schedule or item No. 18 of Part F of the First Schedule for the period from March 12, 1993 and item No. 5 of Part G of the Fist Schedule from July 17, 1996. In view of the remittal, we have to necessarily set aside the order and for that reason, the common order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1143 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tax liability increased by tribunal - Held that:- While exercising the jurisdiction under section 11 of the Trade Tax Act this court has got a very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, i.e., only when the question of law arises as in the present case there is no question of law whatsoever arises and only question of fact is involved from the order passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge. Hence no interference is required in the Tribunal's order.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Taxability under sales tax act - Held that:- Even assuming that the provisions of section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act is made applicable to the case of the assessee, it is an admitted fact that the total taxable turnover is ₹ 10,58,688 only and that the total turnover does not exceed ₹ 1 crore. In that event, in the wake of the proviso to clause (i) of that provision, the first ₹ 10 lakhs is to be exempted and is not liable to be taxed. If that 10 lakhs rupees is exempted, the balance amount in the taxable turnover is ₹ 58,688 only, which is not in dispute, for which the assessee is liable to pay tax at the rate of 10 per cent in terms of section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. However, Mr. S. Ramanathan has submitted that the balance taxable turnover includes the amount of ₹ 6,600 towards iron scrap and that amount also should be deducted, leaving the balance of ₹ 52,088 only to be taxed at 10 per cent. We find force in the said submission. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is liable to pay tax at the rate of 10 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act for the amount of ₹ 52,088. Writ petition is partly allowed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1141 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... tax was not available under 2000 Scheme and not granted by the WBIDC. In these circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of not granting eligibility certificate under the provisions of the VAT Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the application in R.N. 439 of 2008 by setting aside the impugned order July 8, 2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell in suo motu revision case No. SMR (D.C) - 17/08-09. We are not inclined to interfere with the order refusing to grant eligibility certificate under the provisions of the VAT Act, 2003. Benefit enjoyed by petitioner No. 1-company under the eligibility certificate granted under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively by an order passed on July 8, 2008 long after the 1994 Act ceased to operate. Both R.N. 439 of 2008 and R.N. 114 of 2008 are thus disposed of 38 without any order as to costs. DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1140 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the petition of the respondent and thereby terminating the mandate of the arbitrator and thus appointing a new Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the parties?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the High Court for fresh decision of the application under Section 11(6) of the Act and while considering the application afresh, the High Court is directed to take into consideration the aforesaid decision of this Court as the High Court did not appear to have focused on the requirement to have due regard to the qualifications required by the agreement or other conditions necessary to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. Since the requirement of sub-section (8) of Section 11 was not at all dealt with by the High Court in its order, the appointment of an arbitrator without dealing with Sub-Section 8 of Section 11 of the Act became vulnerable and accordingly, such appointment must be set aside
-
2010 (1) TMI 1139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Declaring section 19, item 4 of Schedule H of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as unconstitutional as the same would not be applicable in respect of sugarcane and purchase tax thus not leviable under the said Act.
Held that:- There is no possibility whatsoever to reopen the question by opining that the provisions of section 4(1) of the PGST Act, 1948 would not apply and those of the 1953 Act alone would apply.
On account of the binding precedent available in the form of judgment of Jagatjit Sugar Mills' case [1994 (10) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] we are not dealing with any of the contentions raised by the petitioners which could have been otherwise examined in the light of the observations made in Gobind Sugar Mills' case [1999 (8) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. W.P. dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1138 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e are of the considered view that the claim of exemption under section 5(3) should be considered with reference to the details furnished by the petitioner in form H and in the light of the observations made in this order, namely, that by the sale of printed labels and printed hand tags the export is made as such and the readymade garments do not lose their identity. Accordingly, the orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer for reconsideration as to the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 5(3) in respect of the printed labels and printed hang tags as per the details furnished by the assessee in form H declaration. As far as the challenge to the penalty is concerned, as we have set aside the orders of levying tax as such and remitting the matter, the imposition of penalty shall depend upon the orders that may be passed by the assessing officer. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1137 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Non-submission of the sales tax clearance certificate - the petitioner had pledged the earnest money in favour of the "IGP" instead of "Inspector General of Prisons - Held that:- Non-consideration of the petitioner’s tender on the ground that the earnest money has not been pledged appropriately is not justified and accordingly I find every reason to declare that non-consideration of the petitioner’s tender by the purchase Board on November 17, 2009 was illegal and cannot be sustained in law.
Selection of a party to execute a supply work through tender process would normally require selection of the party who has quoted the lowest price and in this case the petitioner’s quotation was lower than respondent No. 4 to whom the work order was issued. Considering the lower quotation of the petitioner, he has a better right in my view to secure the contract in question and under such circumstances the work order granted in favour of respondent No. 4 is declared to be illegal. W.P. allowed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1136 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Non entitlment to exemption from tax in respect of two machines purchased by it for setting up of a new industrial unit for manufacture of marble slabs and tiles
Held that:- The Tax Board has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner-assessee of tax exemption in respect of part of plant and machinery delivered to it after a few days from the date of commencement of commercial production on December 2, 1996 and the process of setting up of a new industrial unit cannot be said to be over merely on the date of commencement of commercial production, as certified by competent authority, particularly when the order for the said plant and machinery in question was placed during the process of setting up of the said industrial unit and the said plant and machinery were procured and installed for the same industrial unit. Revision petition of the petitioner-assessee is allowed
-
2010 (1) TMI 1135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether once the appellate authority has set aside the order of assessment, the attachment order already passed based on the earlier order of assessment should automatically go?
Held that:- Taking into consideration that the proceedings of assessment are pending before the assessing officer, we are of considered view that a direction has to be given to the assessing officer to pass order of assessment after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In such a view of the matter, directing the second respondent to complete the process of assessment after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as per the notice of the second respondent, the second respondent is given 30 days time from January 8, 2010 and pass appropriate orders.
It is made clear that immediately on passing the assessment order, as per the order of remand made by the appellate authority dated December 2, 2008, the second respondent shall lift the order of attachment subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the assessing officer that the petitioner shall not alienate the property in question
-
2010 (1) TMI 1134 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed item as a whole should be treated as an unspecified item ignoring the specific entry regarding tobacco made against serial No. 82 of Schedule I to the 1994 Act. We feel that it would be unjustified to take such a view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that sale prices of zarda included in the total price of Double Mazza should merit exemption in terms of entry 82 of Schedule I to the 1994 Act. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh assessment keeping in mind the observations made hereinbefore and after allowing reasonable opportunity to the applicant. At the same time, the applicant should disclose the basis of determining the sale price of the disputed item so that the assessing authority can fairly and justly assess the sale price of pan masala being sold separately along with tobacco in a single pouch under the brand name double mazza . The petition, thus, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. PRADIPTA RAY (Chairman). - I agree.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1133 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... epted and acted on the basis of the said certificate without any protest or demur. We do not express any opinion whether the appropriate authority for granting eligibility certificate could deviate from the provisions of section 39 and rule 55 because the petitioner herein has not challenged the legality or validity of the eligibility certificate in the present case. For the aforementioned reasons we hold that scraps generated in course of the process for manufacturing main products qualify to be treated as products manufactured in the petitioner s industrial unit. But we decline to interfere with the impugned notice of suo motu revision because the eligibility certificate allowed exemption only on two specified products. The petitioner will now respond to the said impugned notice and place its case, if any against the proposed revision, in writing by January 31, 2010. The application is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. DIPAK CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1132 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the assessment relating to undated slip No. 25 which does not involve any sale of goods?
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the equal addition towards probable and not in the revision of assessment?
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the penalty more particularly in a revision of assessment under section 16(2) in relation to surcharge?
Held that:- The appellate authority and the Tribunal had correctly confirmed the said addition and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee is not able to furnish other materials to support his case to take a contrary view of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the additions made on the basis of slip Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are confirmed and we answer the first question of law in favour of the Revenue and as against the assessee.
In respect of equal addition made for probable omission, there is no material available on record for warranting said addition and the assessing officer has not given any reason. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal have also without assigning any reasons, affirmed the order of the assessing officer. Accordingly, the second question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue.
Taking into consideration the explanation and also the transaction reflected in the books of account, the penalty levied under section 12(3) of the Act is not warranted and the same is deleted. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 12(3) is deleted and the third question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1131 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fact, the Appellate Tribunal has passed orders on September 21, 1998, nearly 12 years before and the petitioner has not chosen to raise that ground before the Tribunal. Further, even in the grounds of present revision, this ground has not been raised. Of course, this court would certainly come to the rescue of the person, who has approached this court for fresh consideration on question of law. We are not inclined to apply the same yardstick in the present case for more than one reason. There is abnormal delay of more than 25 years in raising such ground before this court and such delay would affect the revenue in tax matters, if this court allows fresh consideration of such question of law. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the tax case revision. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not advanced any other arguments for our consideration. Accordingly, we find no merit in the tax case revision. The tax case revision is dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ,80,359) On the face of it, it is very clear that the order of assessment dated December 24, 2009 is based on the notice issued by the respondent dated December 21, 2009 and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order of assessment dated December 24, 2009 is set aside, however, with liberty to the respondent to follow the circular issued by the Commissioner dated December 27, 2006, by giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that while such opportunity is given, the petitioner shall utilise the same for the purpose of producing the entire records in respect of exemption claims and after filing such documents and objections as per circular dated December 27, 2006, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the subject transaction was a loan transaction or a "sale" within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- The Central Government was expected to maintain uniform petroleum price throughout the territory of India. None of the States attempted to collect sales tax on the transaction. In case one among the States started collecting sales tax under the local or Central Sales Tax Act on the loan transaction, treating it as a sale, it would cause serious implications as the petroleum cost would be higher in those States which took the crude oil on loan from the refinery situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. The allocation as well as re-allocation were made before the ship entered the territorial waters of India. Therefore, there was no question of sale taking place within the jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu so as to enable the sales tax authorities to treat the transaction as sale and to collect sales tax either under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore, necessarily, the transaction has to be treated as one of loan or barter and not sale.
W.P. No. 9356 of 1998 is dismissed as infructuous. W.P. No. 9357 of 1998 is allowed. There will be a writ of declaration declaring the transaction in the name and style of "procedure for loan transactions of crude oil between the oil companies" pursuant to the procedure adopted by the Oil Co-ordination Committee as a simple barter or loan transaction without the element of sale.
............
|
