|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 927 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1032 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Revision petition - Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining opportunity to obtain and produce C forms which were not available even when the matter was heard by the Tribunal Held that:- Revision is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal, which in our view, was completely in favour of the petitioner. However, the further relief the petitioner wants beyond what the Tribunal has granted is further time to obtain and produce C forms for the balance turnover. We do not think the Tribunal has any such powers to grant indefinite time to obtain C forms for production at any time the dealer wants. In fact, C forms should have been produced at the assessment stage itself and even for accepting belated C forms, the assessee has to furnish explanation. Rightly or wrongly the Tribunal took a lenient view in petitioner's case and accepted all the C forms produced before them. This in fact amounts to condonation of delay by the Tribunal in the production of C forms without which the same could not have been ordered to be accepted. In any case the Tribunal has no powers to grant further time for the petitioner to try for C forms for the balance turnover. So much so, the Tribunal did not grant time requested for by the petitioner. Strangely even after five months of the Tribunal's order, the petitioner could not obtain the C forms because even in the revised assessment passed pursuant to the Tribunal's order, the petitioner could not produce the same. The revisional powers of the High Court does not extend beyond what the Tribunal could do while disposing of the appeal. So much so, in our view, the High Court cannot in exercise of revisional powers grant indefinite time to obtain and produce C forms - Decided against assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1031 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rate of tax - 3% or 4% - Refund of 1% tax on presentation of Form ST-17 - Revenue forfeited 1% amount of tax collected - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that under section 16(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, there is no provision for forfeiting the amount of excess tax deposited by a registered dealer. It only provides for levying penalty upon those registered dealers who realize the excess tax. The assessing authority in this case did not think it proper to levy any penalty, on the contrary, he forfeited the amount of excess tax refunded by the non-petitioner assessee under section 16(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which cannot be said to be an order passed in accordance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act. The provisions contained in section 16(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act are required to be read along with the provisions contained in section 23B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and these provisions do not provide any force to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1030 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision of assessment - Personal hearing opportunity not given - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- Special Government Pleader is correct in his submissions that the judgment of the Division Bench should be understood in the context of the circular of the respondent providing for personal hearing, as otherwise, the Division Bench would not have rendered such a findings. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act uses the wordings "reasonable opportunity to show cause" in certain contingencies and "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in certain contingencies. Wherever the statute has used the wordings "reasonable opportunity of being heard", then the Department is bound to give an opportunity of personal hearing. However, section 16(1)(a) does not use the wordings "reasonable opportunity of being heard", but only uses the wordings "reasonable opportunity to show cause". However, the respondent himself issued the circular which provides for personal hearing while exercising revisional power under section 16(1) of the TNGST Act and the said circular applies to the order of assessment concerned in these writ petitions. Hence, judgment of the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of these cases. Therefore, for not providing an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly the same are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass orders afresh under section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1029 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Taxability of transportation charges - Tribunal held that transportation charges so collected are part of the post-sale expenditure and are not liable to be included in the total turnover - Held that:- dealer collects freight charges as part of total order value. Though, it is specifically mentioned what is the cost component to the said transportation charges, collecting the value before effecting sale of the goods, when sale of goods becomes complete only after the delivery of the goods, therefore, it becomes part of taxable turnover. If after transfer of title to the goods by delivery of the goods, for which he has already collected the price of the goods and after delivery if he receives the transportation charges, then the said amount does not form part of the taxable turnover as it is not a part of the sale consideration or paid prior to sale of the goods. That appears to be a clear manifestation of the intention by the Legislature as contained in various definitions referred to above and the clarifications issued by the Government. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the revisional authority is strictly in accordance with law, whereas the appellate authority was carried away by the legal position prior to the enactment of the Act and thus he got confused himself without looking into the express provisions contained in the Act. The revisional authority was therefore justified in interfering with the order as the order was prejudicial to the remedy - Following decision of APCO Concrete Block and Allied Products Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Audit 1, DVO, Bangalore and Others [2010 (7) TMI 943 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1028 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the impugned order of reassessment is barred by limitation?
Held that:- It is not disputed that the assessment order, in case of the petitioner, was passed on November 12, 2004, whereas, the notice for reassessment was issued within the period 5/6 months of the order of the assessment. This cannot be said to be barred by limitation, nor can it be said that the amendment has been applied retrospective. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1027 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether the findings of the learned Tribunal holding that non-reporting at the ICC and not making declaration in the prescribed form could not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of section 51(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with a view to do an attempt to evade tax are correct in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Whether it was mandatory on the part of the drivers of the vehicles to voluntarily stop at the ICC and give information of the inter-State transaction for getting form VATXXXVI generated and by not doing so, an attempt to evade the tax was made?
Whether penalty was correctly imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for making an attempt to evade the tax by not giving the information of the transaction even though the goods were sent for loading in the railway wagon in the State of Punjab?
Whether the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by this honourable High Court that penalty is to be imposed for making an attempt to evade the tax especially when the documents were recovered from the drivers after getting the vehicles stopped when they failed to give information of the transaction at the ICC?
Held that:- The Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal filed by the assessee had recorded a finding that the driver of the vehicle was in possession of goods receipts along with invoices and produced the same. It was noticed that the goods were to go to Dappar by road and were to be loaded in the railway. It was also observed that the area from where the vehicle had originated, i.e., Shahpur to Dappar, fell within the State of Punjab. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal had concluded that there was no attempt on the part of the assessee to evade tax due or likely to be due.
In view of the aforesaid findings, which could not be shown to be perverse in any manner by the learned counsel for the appellants, no substantial question of law, as claimed, arises in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1026 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the mobile handset would fall under entry 1 of Schedule III or entry 49 of entry 53 of Schedule II of the 1976 Act so as to attract the levy of tax at the rate of one per cent under the Act?
Held that:- In view of the fact that a comparative modern device and equipment, namely, mobile handset was coming in vogue at the time when the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was enacted, there is no difficulty in holding that general words used in entry 49 (wireless reception instruments and apparatus) would cover mobile handsets. In view of the preceding analysis, we hold that mobile handsets are covered under entry 49 of Schedule II of the 1976 Act and excisable to levy for entry tax at the rate of one per cent. For the aforementioned, reasons the contention raised by learned senior counsel that entries have to be given their common parlance meaning and, therefore, the mobile handsets cannot be treated as wireless reception instruments and apparatus, does not deserve acceptance.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that mobile handsets cannot be treated as wireless reception instruments and apparatus then also it would be covered under expression electronic and electrical goods under entry 53 of Schedule II of the Act and the rate of tax under both the entries is the same. Against assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1025 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Restoration of penalty imposed on the assessee by revisional authority - Held that:- The assessee has failed to comply with the burden of reporting at the first situated check-post on entering the State. There has been a clear violation of section 53(2) of the Act. Consequently, penalty under section 53(2)(d) automatically stands attracted. In the instant case, the penalty levied is due to the violation of law and hence, the revisional authority has rightly passed the impugned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order that calls for any interference. Consequently, the questions of law raised in this appeal are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of the merits, is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1024 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether GRD powder and GRD bix would fall within the expression "non-alcoholic drink and beverage" as employed by the Legislature in entry 20(ii) of Part IV of the Second Schedule of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and under entry 14 of Schedule II of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976, so as to attract a higher rate of tax at ten per cent and two per cent, respectively?
Held that:- The expression "beverage" as is commonly understood means any liquid other than water, which may be consumed neat or after dilution. Thus, the products in question, namely, GRD powder and GRD bix which are admittedly not in liquid form cannot be said to fall within the relevant entries, namely, entry 20(ii) of Part IV of Schedule II of the 1994 Act and entry 14 of Schedule II of the Entry Tax Act. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue are clearly distinguishable.
The writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the assessing authority as well as revisional authority contained in annexure P2 and P3 dated April 7, 2001 and annexure P8 dated September 30, 2002 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the tax collected in excess for the relevant period along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum
-
2011 (8) TMI 1023 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether in respect of estimated sales of ₹ 1,20,000, the goods had been made with reference to the goods purchased by the assessee from an unregistered dealer?
Held that:- From the conclusions drawn by the assessee and the Tribunal on appreciation of records, it is established that the purchases could not be shown to have been made from a registered dealer within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The authorities have rightly proceeded to hold that in the facts of the present case the assessee was liable to pay tax at the rate of 12 per cent having regard to the provisions of section 2(ee) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act/the assessee had taken a categorical stand before the authorities that the goods had been purchased from registered dealer within the State, which stand he could not establish. The assessee cannot now turn around and contend before this court that the assessee be treated to have purchased the goods from an unregistered dealer within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, sales made by the assessee may not be taken to be the first sale within the State of Uttar Pradesh after "manufacture", within the definition of section 2(ee) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
The present trade tax revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1022 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... passing of the order, therefore cannot be sustained in law, being barred by limitation. In case, the limitation is counted from August 2, 2004, as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, in that case also, the impugned notice cannot be sustained, for want of jurisdiction, as the respondent does not have any jurisdiction, to revise assessment under notice, as there is no provision of second revision by the same office. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader, that these points can be raised before the authority, though forceful, but cannot be looked into at this stage, as the writ petition was admitted in the year 2008, and no useful purpose will be served to relegate the petitioner to the authority especially when notice is without jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned pre-revision notice dated July 7, 2008 is ordered to be quashed. Consequently, connected M.P. 1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1021 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2004-05 - Held that:- From the record, it appears that the Additional Commissioner, Grade I passed the impugned order dated May 5, 2011 and rejected the representation made by the petitioner after providing the reasonable opportunity as per the direction of this court. In the impugned order, it was mentioned that the assessee has not given any written or oral submission. It was stated in the impugned order that the petitioner will have no objection if the reassessment proceedings starts under section 21 of the Act. It was also stated that proceedings under section 22 should be replaced under section 21.
In view of above and also the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioner has got ample opportunity to defend his case before the first appellate authority. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1020 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction as the 1957 Act does not permit the respondent to revise his own order on the self-same material?
Held that:- The contention of the respondent that the impugned order is appealable and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable as the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to short-circuit or circumvent the statutory appellate remedies, cannot be countenanced for the reasons more than one that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and even barred by limitation as indicated hereinabove.
For the foregoing reasons, the other contentions of the petitioner-company as well as the respondent need not be gone into. Consequently, the impugned order dated July 24, 2008 is liable to be set aside, which we accordingly do so. Appeal allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1019 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Best judgment assessment - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the surprise raid of the premises of the assessee was carried out on June 23, 1998, uncounted transactions were found. Therefore, best judgment assessment was resorted to. The Tribunal has reduced the best judgment assessment turnover as arrived at by the first appellate authority only on mere presumption without taking note of the fact that the turnover for the remaining part of the assessment year had to be multiplied .
In view of the aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal to the extent it reduces the best judgment assessment turnover cannot be legally sustained. It is hereby quashed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1018 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest and penalty was levied under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?
Held that:- As far as the present case is concerned, as already pointed out, the assessee admitted its liability in the form of revised return. When once in the revised return the assessee admitted its liability to the assessment year 1992-93 and paid tax, applying the decision of this court reported in [1994 (10) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] (Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes IV), we have no hesitation in holding that section 24(3) of the Act stood attracted. Hence, we have no hesitation in confirming the view of the Tribunal. The writ petitions are dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1017 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the STATwas justified in drawing inference, and in coming to the conclusion, that the sale transactions in question were inter-State sales or whether the findings of the STATin this regard are based on mere surmises and are perverse?
Held that:- The conclusion of the STATthat the sales of DEPB scrips were inter-State sales is based on inferences which any reasonable person would have arrived at. The contentions of the petitioner's counsel to the contrary do not commend acceptance. Section 21(5) of the APGST Act merely enabled the STATto make such inquiry as it deemed fit before passing the order under section 21(4) of the Act. It is not necessary that the STATshould, in every case, conduct an enquiry before passing the order confirming the order of the revisional authority. The order of the STATis a well considered and reasoned order. It does not necessitate interference in revision proceedings under section 22(1) of the APGST Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1016 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Powers of reassessment - Held that:- Lack of diligence on the part of the assessing authority in passing the initial order of assessment in exercise of powers conferred under section 21(4), is no justification for a reassessment under section 21(6). In any event, no serious prejudice is caused to the Revenue on account of the absence of diligence in passing the first order of assessment, since the power to revise or modify is available under section 32 of the 2005 Act.
On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order of reassessment dated July 7, 2009, passed by the first respondent for the tax periods 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, passed on no new or fresh material de hors, the record already available while passing the initial order of assessment dated April 19, 2008, is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed
-
2011 (8) TMI 1015 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment being in violation of principles of natural justice, and also contrary to second proviso to section 3(2), and section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Held that:- The assessment order in the case of petitioner has been revised, in violation of provision of the Act, and principle of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of revised assessment is ordered to be set aside, with liberty to the respondent to pass fresh orders, after complying with the principles of natural justice and supplying necessary materials forming basis for review to the petitioner.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1014 - SUPREME COURT
Whether power of revision vested in the Commissioner having been circumscribed under sub-section (2A) of section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 nothing could be read therein which would confer a wide power upon the Commissioner as a consequence of which the purport of object of sub-section (2A) of section would be defeated?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1013 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
No voluntary payment of tax and penalty by the petitioner as the goods were detained along with the vehicle and, as there was urgency, the petitioner paid the tax and penalty - whether the petitioner cannot be said to have accepted the contravention or irregularity?
Held that:- While admitting the irregularities committed, petitioner expressed willingness to pay the tax and penalty. Though the show-notice was served, he did not choose to file any objections. Admittedly the petitioner had voluntarily paid the tax and penalty, after receiving the show-cause notice. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the respondent's action. Hence the question of refund would not arise nor are we willing to hold that the levy and collection of tax and penalty is illegal and arbitrary. Appeal dismissed.
............
|
