Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 24628 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (7) TMI 114
Concessional rate of tax - difficulty in obtaining C-Forms - HELD THAT:- The State has, after the date of the above order, filed a Writ appeal in W.A.No.3403 of 2019 challenging the decision in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) VERSUS THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CS) (SYSTEMS) VERSUS SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED [2020 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] that has been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 09.03.2020. Mr.Shaffiq agrees that there is complete identity on facts and in law in the matter before me as well as in the matter considered earlier. Petition allowed.
- 2020 (7) TMI 84
Reopening of assessement - compounding of tax - reversal of tax under Section 25(1) of the 2003 Act - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that the second appeal is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. On going through Ext.P4, the demand was stayed subject to deposit of 20% way back in February 2020 and the amount ordered to be deposited in one month expired on 19.03.2020. The petitioner prima facie do not require any concession but, the Tribunal ought to have imposed the condition of 20% as envisaged under Section 55(4) of the 2003 Act, though strictly not applicable to the second appeal, particularly owing to the fact that there was complete lock down and hardy any business carried out during this period and it was very difficult to generate money and pay the amount. The percentage of amount reduced from 30% to 20% which would come....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 1
Bidding of attached Property - priority of charge over the secured assets - Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT:- The writ application bringing it to the notice of the respondent No.1 i.e. the Commercial Tax Officer (4) - Ahmedabad that the subject property was a secured asset of the respondent No.2 - Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act. Being a secured asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent No.2 cannot claim preference over the subject property for the purpose of recovery of the dues towards tax. It is not in dispute that the first charge was created in favour of the bank and the bank, in exercise of its powers under the SARFAESI Act, put the subject property to auction. All these developments took place way back in the year 2015. The disputed entry No.16521 came to be mutated on 24th January 2017 for sho....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 685
Interpretation of Statute - Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Levy of Purchase Tax - purchase turnover, with respect to the purchase of empty bottles from unregistered dealers under bought note - Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 - HELD THAT:- For applicability of Section 7-A (1) of the Act, all the six ingredients need to be cumulatively satisfied. The ingredient (6) has three alternatives viz., the dealer has either (a) consumed or used the goods in question in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, or (b) has disposed of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c) has despatched or carried them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It is not in dispute that clauses (b) or....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 684
Principles of Natural Justice - non-service of notice but assessment order served - suppression of sales turnover on the basis of electricity consumed during the assessment year in question - case of petitioner is that the respondent before making revised assessment, has not provided reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the books of accounts maintained for the relevant year - HELD THAT:- It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent, while passing the revised assessment order, has not verified the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner for the relevant year - It is well settled that the electricity consumption cannot be adopted as the sole basis for rejecting the accounts of the assessee and for making an estimate of the taxable turnover of the assessee. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh co....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 683
Levy of VAT - certain defects and estimated visible loss and invisible loss - reversal of ITC for exempted sales - HELD THAT:- Since the refund order is relating to the assessment year 2011-12, the second respondent shall decide the issue afresh, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objection. Such notice be issued by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall submit their objections along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter. The second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 682
Reversal of ITC - alleged invisible loss - validity of circular dated 20.10.2011 - HELD THAT:- Since the notice issued is relating to the assessment year 2012-13, the second respondent / Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objections. Such notice be issued by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks therefrom.
- 2020 (6) TMI 681
Levy of VAT - 4% on the invisible loss at 5% of yarn purchase and on the sales of cutting waste and rejected export garments at 0.5% - HELD THAT:- Since the assessment orders are relating to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the respondent / Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh, after issuing show cause notices to the petitioner clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objections. Such notices be issued by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such notices, the petitioner shall submit their objections along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Petition allowed.
- 2020 (6) TMI 591
Levy of VAT - Inter-state Branch Transfer - petitioner contends that there is no element of sale involved in this transaction and the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax on it and did not report it in its CST-VI returns - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had raised substantial contentions both on law and on facts and the 1st respondent ought to have provided a personal hearing after the COVID-19 pandemic situation resolves to enable the petitioner to submit the documentary evidence regarding its defence that the turnover of ₹ 40,68,01,526/- relates to inter-State purchase of goods under inter-State branch transfer and there is no element of sale involved in it - there has been denial of opportunity to the petitioner by the 1st respondent in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown and therefore, the impugned order of....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 590
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard even on merits - baseless presumption that petitioner had effected sale of its assets to ‘MHPL’ at Book Value and that there is no sale as a ‘going concern’ - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice dt.12.02.2020 proposing to levy additional VAT of ₹ 82,04,233/- for the periods 2014-15 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) and gave a mere seven (07) days’ time to the petitioner to file a reply - In such a short time, it is not possible for the petitioner to file all the documentary evidence and also file a detailed reply covering a period of more than five (05) years. It is not in dispute that petitioner filed a letter dt.20.02.2020 seeking additional time of two (02) mo....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 551
Maintainability of appeal - failure to make pre-deposit as per Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - request for waiver of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had exercised the right of appeal which is subject to the condition. The mere fact that its account has been declared as Non- Performing Asset would not empower the Appellate Authority to waive off pre-deposit - The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (6) TMI 550
Maintainability of Review Petition - time limitation - no sufficient ground has been given in the Application for condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- There is limitation prescribed for six months for filing the review application. Even thereafter, for more than 500 days, the review application was not filed. The issuance of notice in the remand proceedings by the Assessing Authority itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. The issue that the assessment was not finalised within the reasonable time is not a pure question of law but would depend upon the factual aspect of each case. In the present case, apart from six months prescribed limitation, there is delay of 505 days, the explanation put forth is not worth acceptance. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (6) TMI 549
Classification of goods - Black Disinfectant Fluid (BDF) - whether covered by Entry 25 of Schedule C of HVAT Act and is therefore leviable to tax at concessional rate as Schedule C item, whereas the Entry 25 of the HVAT Act deals with specific items and BDF does not found mentioned therein - HELD THAT:- The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is in consonance with common parlance test. The assessee produced letter dated 7.1.2016 received from the Assistant State Drug Controller, Haryana under the Right to Information Act,2005. The letter stated that BDF is manufactured under Schedule O of the 1940 Act and falls in the category of 'drugs' defined in Section 3(b) of the said Act. The information is provided by the official of the office dealing with the said product and issuing licence under the 1940 Act for manufacture of BDF - T....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 548
Rate of tax - classification of goods - sales of ‘sports shoes’ and ‘sports apparel’ - whether taxable under Entry 46 and Entry 52 of IV Schedule respectively, or they fall under the residuary entry falling under V Schedule? - HELD THAT:- The term ‘Footwear’ in Entry 46 of IV Schedule includes ‘sports shoes’ and the D.C.T.O.- II (Enforcement Wing) could not have held that they fall under residuary entry under V Schedule, and he ought to have held that they fall under Entry 46 of IV Schedule; and the Tribunal was right in not only relying on the certificates of the suppliers that the shoes were made of plastic but also on the Government Memo dt.17.10.2008 holding that ‘moulded plastic footwear’ described in Entry 46 also includes not only the ‘footwear’ of one moulded ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 547
Rate of Tax - Instrument Cooling Fan - whether taxed under the heading Schedule-II(B)-3 taking it to be a part of larger equipment for communication, or under the residuary clause, taking it to be an electrical equipment - justification of the reassessment proceedings by the Revenue Authorities and the orders passed therein. HELD THAT:- The powers which have been given to the Commissioner for opening a reassessment even beyond a period of “three years” under sub-section 4 of Section 29 of the Act, where the Commissioner can initiate reassessment proceedings on his own or when he is satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Authority. In the present case the reassessment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority had to assign reasons under s....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 546
VAT on sale of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) - Transaction took place in Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra - Ascertained goods or not - It is the petitioners' case that the asset in question constitutes specific and ascertained goods. Mr.Haribabu however, points out that the DEPB is categorised in Entry 70/Part B/ First Schedule to the Act as intangible goods along with copyright, patent and REP licence and is thus, according to him, unascertained - HELD THAT:- Explanation (V)(a)(i) provides that the sale or purchase of specified/ascertained goods shall be deemed to have taken place in the State if the goods are within the State at the time when the contract of sale or purchase is entered into. There being no dispute on the position that the goods in question, the DEPB, and additionally, the seller as well as the buyer were all located in....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 522
Adjustment of amount to be refunded with the dues under CST for arrears of tax for the assessment years - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is pending for last 7 years before this court. During the interregnum the petitioner has fallen in arrears of tax for the above mentioned assessment years under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Therefore, there are no reasons to grant relief to the petitioner at the stage as these appeals itself can be directed to be disposed by the Sales Tax Appellae Tribunal, Coimbatore within a period of 6 months from date of this order. The respondent shall refund the amount forthwith after due adjustments of any tax if any that may be due from the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (6) TMI 498
Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the alleged stock variation merely for reason that departmental delivery notes were not issued? HELD THAT:- The Tribunal erroneously deleted such additions made on the ground that addition would be taken care of in that made with respect to suppression. The addition made on the basis of the stock variation, to cover probable omissions and suppression is only that up to September of the assessment year; till which date the assessee had not been using departmental delivery notes. The under-valuation is insofar as the months from October to March of the assessment year. Computing the figures from the table available in the assessment order, the total products sent on departmental delivery note had a value of ₹ 3,50,01,765/- between October and March. The sale conceded as disclosed in the list....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 497
Works Contract - validity of pre-assessment notice - disallowance of exemption claimed by the petitioner under Rule 10 - disallowance of minor portion of input tax credit - petitioner has made a specific case that the pre-assessment notice does not disclose grounds which has actually been now relied on in the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order - HELD THAT:- Going by the data and facts and figures now projected in Ext.P-6 application for rectification would indicate that the petitioner has made out a very strong case that even parametres like land cost, corpus fund, electrical and water charges, etc. has already been reckoned by the 1st respondent, while determining the issue of value added tax, as per the impugned Ext.P-5 assessment order. Such an aspect would certainly termed as “wednesbury unreasonableness” in the decision ma....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 496
Refund of Excess payment made towards excess IPT - grant of interest on refund - Section 89(4) of the KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- It is ordered that the respondents will immediately take up the plea for refund made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will take considerable decision thereon, passing orders in the matter of grant of refund due to the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment and depending on the orders so passed, the consequential steps for disbursing the new refund amounts should also be duly completed by the respondents or the competent official concerned within 4 weeks thereafter. Grant of interest on the refund - HELD THAT:- The said claim for interest should also be duly considered and orders ....... + More