|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 24275 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 (1) TMI 849
Refund along with interest - Delhi VAT Act - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The concerned respondent authorities are directed to decide the claim of refund of this petitioner in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the case and also keeping in mind the principle of unjust enrichment as propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] as early as possible and practicable. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (1) TMI 847
Issuance of C-form - failure to issue C-form for certain supplies - stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 in their counter-affidavit is that the ‘C’ Forms have not been issued to respondent No. 5 due to non-inclusion of particulars of the purchases made by respondent No.5 from the petitioner No. 1 in its returns filed with the Department for the relevant period 2012-13 - applicability of time limit as provided in Section 28 of the DVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The respondent No.5 is an undertaking of the GNCTD, and respondents No.1 to 3 are also GNCTD, and thus, the omissions made by respondent No.5 could not be a ground for respondents No.1 to 3 not to issue the ‘C’ Forms, has no merit. This is for the reason that respondent No.5 - though an undertaking of the GNCTD, is an assessee under the law and is bound by the same disci....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 800
Levy of Sales Tax - sale of goods imported from foreign country - to foreign bound ships as “ship stores” - sale or not - whether the subject sales (of goods imported from foreign country and after unloading the same on the landmass of the State of West Bengal, kept in the bonded warehouse without payment of customs duty) to foreign bound ships as “ship stores” can be regarded as sale within the territory of the State and amenable to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 or the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994? HELD THAT:- The sale to be in the course of import, must be a sale of goods and as a consequence of such sale, the goods must actually be imported within the territory of India and further, the sale must be part and parcel of the import so as to occasion import thereof. Indeed, for the purposes ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 799
Waiver of penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Form 38 had certain unfilled (blank) column - intent to evade tax or not - HELD THAT:- Non-filling up of column no. 6 i.e. not mentioning of bill / cash memo / chalan / invoice number may lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of goods the declaration form may be re-used for importing goods of same quantity, weight and value to evade payment of tax but it cannot be the sole ground to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008. Satisfaction has to be recorded after giving opportunity to the dealer / person and after considering all the relevant materials / evidences on record that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. The guilty mind is necessary to be established to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008........ + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 754
Doctrine of merger - Levy of Purchase Tax - transfer of right to use the goods - Section 8A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - applicability of Section 22 of the Act, 1948 - Contention of the revisionist is that the lease rent received by the revisionist from the lessee, was not amenable to levy of tax on the transfer of right to use the goods as per Section 3F of the Act, 1948 and therefore they were not liable for payment of any tax, as such. HELD THAT:- The application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948 sought to rectify the mistake committed by the assessing authority who passed the assessment order in ignorance of the amendments made in Section 3F of the Act, 1948 by means of Amendment Act No. 11 of 2001 and therefore the said application was clearly not maintainable, inasmuch as, in exercise of power under Section 22 of the Act, 1948,....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 753
Imposition of penalty U/s 10-A read with Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act - quantum of penalty - addition/amendment with regard to the items required to be imported by the revisionist - amendment in the registration certificate. HELD THAT:- The admitted facts of this case are that the revisionist had moved an application for adding of Branch of his firm and also for addition of items. The competent authority had only added the Branch but no order was passed with regard to addition of the items. It is true that Form-C was issued in respect to the items to be imported, which did not find mention in the certificate of registration and the revisionist is claiming that the said goods were imported under the bona-fide belief that the goods have been included in the amended certificate of registration - It is also uncontroverted that a....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 752
Waiver of penalty u/s section 54(1)(14) of the VAT Act - Form 38 was blank - contravention of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- Perusal sub Section 6 of Section 28A itself indicates that penalty can be imposed only after giving opportunity of being heard that the goods were being so transported in an attempt to evade payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act and therefore mens rea becomes essential ingredient - Non-filling up of column no. 6 i.e. not mentioning of bill / cash memo / chalan / invoice number may lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of goods the declaration form may be re-used for importing goods of same quantity, weight and value to evade payment of tax but it cannot be the sole ground to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008. Satisfaction has to be recorde....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 751
Waiver of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - unfilled (blank) column of Form 38 - contravention of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case it is admitted fact that the respondent had duly applied for and obtained Form 38 for import of goods and the Column 6 of the said Form was left blank on account of negligence of the respondent. It is only on account of non filling of Column 6, penalty has been imposed upon the respondent. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that there was no intention to evade tax and the driver of the vehicle carrying the goods was carrying all the relevant documents including the bill/challan/bilty etc. from which the details of goods being carried on the vehicle could have been verified by the officer concerned and therefore there was no o....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 750
Maintainability of revision - rectification of mistake - wrong finding has been given in the order in the appeal which is already on the record of the Trade Tax Tribunal - Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - limited scope of Tribunal u/s 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - evidence on record but ignored and not considered under the judgment. HELD THAT:- The scope of Section 22 of the Act, 1948 is limited and the same is attracted only when the applicant is able to demonstrate that there is error apparent on the face of record, requiring rectification. If an error is discovered after dwelling deep in the matter and after debating, then such a error would not amount to "error apparent on the face of record" and in fact would amount to review of the order, which cannot be done under the garb of an application under Section 22 of the ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 749
Seizure of goods by police - goods seized by the police under the Trade Tax Act for the reason, the applicants are not the importer as per the definition of importer provided under Section 2E of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and contesting the matter before the authorities - HELD THAT:- The conjoint reading of Section 28-A and Section 15A(1)(o) clearly provides that in case of contravention of the provisions of Section 28- A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, the person is liable to be penalised under Section 15A(1)(o) - From the perusal of the FIR and the impugned order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the learned trial court clearly establishes that the basis of applying Section 420 of I.P.C. is that the applicants have acted in contravention of Section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The perusal of Section 5 Cr.P.C., which is saving clause and protects the pro....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 748
Validity of revision - imposition of penalty - Form-31/documents prescribed for inter-State sale not produced - revision relates to assessment year 2005-06 - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the First Appellate Authority has recorded findings of fact that the goods were being imported for production of non taxable goods and therefore import of said machine is not liable to be taxed - Secondly, that the said machine was not found in working condition and therefore the same was returned to M/s Disha Enterprises, therefore there was no sale on which such penalty can be imposed. Aforesaid facts, in the opinion of this Court, should have been considered by the Tribunal in their proper perspective and in case explanation given by the revisionist are accepted, then it is clear that it indicates that there was no intention to evade tax. Though the Tr....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 710
Principles of Natural Justice - cancellation of registration - Petitioner was purchasing natural gas by paying Central Sales Tax - SCN was issued to the Petitioner for cancellation of registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The authority cancelling the certificate has to be satisfied that cause exists for cancellation of registration and the cancellation is to be done after due notice to the dealer. Therefore, if the dealer submits explanation to the show cause notice, the authority, before proceeding to cancel the registration, will have to be satisfied that the explanation is not proper. This procedure envisages that reasons need to be given to cancel the registration. The registered dealer is entitled to know why his explanation was not found satisfactory. The SCN issued to the Petitioner on the basis that the ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 709
Refund claim alongwith interest - Section 42 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act - case of petitioner is that direction to be given to the respondent no.3/ Value Added Tax Officer to decide the claim and refund of the petitioner within the stipulated time in accordance with law - HELD THAT:- The respondent no.3/ Value Added Tax Officer , Ward 80, I.P. Estate, New Delhi are directed to decide the claim and refund of the petitioner in accordance with rules, regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case and also keeping in mind principle of unjust enrichment - petition disposed off.
- 2020 (1) TMI 665
Exemption to Unbranded Furniture sold by the petitioner - whether taxable at 12.5% under item 69 (C,C No.3) Part C of the 1st Schedule Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006? - HELD THAT:- The law on the subject is well settled. In the matters of classification, it is the commercial parlance test which is relevant. It is test which has and that has to be adopted by the assessing officer. He has to decide as to how the product is treated in the market by the men of commerce in the trade. It is not the clarification or a particular view of the superior officer which should weigh his mind though such clarifications in the matters of classifications may be a relevant factor. However, they are not the only factors which are relevant. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass an independent order uninfluenced by either of the clarifications of the Department - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (1) TMI 664
Principles of Natural Justice - validity of assessment order - It is the grievance of the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner before passing of the order impugned - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the assessment order impugned is made on the annual basis relating to the tax periods, April 2009 to March 2010. A reading of provisions of Rule 37 of of KVAT Rules and Section 38(7) of of KVAT Act makes it clear that the authority authorized by the Commissioner is empowered to assess to the best of its judgment for the tax period or periods that would apply to such dealer. It is incumbent on respondent No.1 - Authority to assess/re-assess the dealer for the tax period or periods which would be a calendar month in the present set of facts - No consolidated assessment on annual basis is justifiable under the s....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 634
Maintainability of petition - appropriate forum - pure questions of fact - Levy of penalty under Section 27 of TNVAT Act - purchase omissions - input tax credit on interstate sales without C forms - HELD THAT:- I do not propose to delve into these explanations, being pure questions of fact. A perusal of the show cause notice, reply and order of assessment make it apparent that the discrepancies noted by the authorities as well as the objections raised refer to several factual matters and it is only upon an appreciation of the same can the disputes be resolved - while the petitioner can certainly challenge the order as being incorrect in its appreciation of transactions in question, there is no perversity on facts or errors in law that is made out before me. This is a matter where the petitioner should avail the statutory appellate remedy ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 579
Concessional rate of tax - business of petroleum products - sale to power generating undertakings in the joint sector - sale of furnace oil, lubricant etc. as industrial raw material/component parts sold to industrial units for use in production. Sale to power generating undertakings in the joint sector - HELD THAT:- It was held by the Tribunal in T.A.No.9/2012, in respect of the said assessment year that, the assessee fulfilled the requirements of the notification, i.e., SRO 319/2005, which succeeded SRO No.1091/ 1999 and that as such, concessional rate of tax could not be denied to the assessee. The Revenue took up the matter in revision. S.T.Rev.No.1/2014 was dismissed by order dated 18.1.2017 stating that there is no ground warranting interference with the impugned order in revision. Though it appears from the order in S.T.Revision th....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 578
Waiver of penalty - wilful non-disclosure of turnover - petitioner has not responded to the notice - HELD THAT:- The impugned attachment order is against the present petitioner/appellant M/s.Supreme Dyechem Pvt ltd., represented by its Director Mr.Mohan Prasath J, who is related to Mr.G.Jayabal, Sole Proprietor, M/s.Supreme Chemical Industries, who are father and son. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the present writ petition filed by the petitioner / appellant company with certain directions to deposit certain amounts under the garnishee proceedings initiated against the present appellant company. The garnishee proceedings now cannot sustain and the penalty in question itself has been set aside and matter stands remanded to the Assessing Authority. - the present writ appeal is disposed of as rendered infructuous.
- 2020 (1) TMI 577
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Best judgement assessment - enhancement of turnover - failure to file audit report - HELD THAT:- The present Writ Appeal is an exceptional case and deserves to be allowed, not because the assessing authority could not invoke his powers under Section 22(4) of the Act for the reason of not filing of the audit report, but because of the manner in which the 'best judgment assessment' has been passed by the assessing authority on 04.06.2018 for the assessment period 2016-17. The consequence of not getting his accounts audited even though his turnover is over Rupees One Crore and not submitting the audit report with the return or turnover is provided under explanation (2) to Section 63A itself viz., imposition of penalty of ₹ 10,000/-, that too after giving a reaso....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 576
Condonation of delay of about more than 5 years - reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the Respondent before the First Appellate Authority - requirement with the pre-deposit - Gujarat VAT Act - HELD THAT:- As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, there is not even a whisper therein with regard to condonation of delay - From the submissions made by the learned Government representative before the Tribunal, it is evident that no submission has been made as regards the condonation of delay. It therefore, appears that the delay was probably condoned prior to the second appeal being taken up for hearing before the Tribunal. Question regarding condonation of delay therefore, cannot be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that ....... + More
........
|
