|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 589 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 775 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt Department. 5. The appellate orders were sought to be revised by the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) but as noted above the said authority did not deal with the contention of the petitioners that the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department was not supplied to the petitioners and yet it was used against them. 6. Learned Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department says that the petitioners will be supplied with the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department within one week and the matter will be considered afresh by the assessing authority. 7. In view of this submission and statement by learned Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department, we set aside the orders passed against the petitioners and remand the matter back to the assessing authority to take a decision after supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department to the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of. Interim applications are also disposed of.
-
2011 (12) TMI 754 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER For orders see our order of date passed in Writ (Tax) No. 1484 of 2007 (I.T.C. Limited vs. State of UP and others).
-
2011 (12) TMI 728 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essing Officer to produce the contracts, for the Officer to verify whether the reassessment completed under Section 19 (1) in respect of the items of the work executed for PWD, i.e. fish farming, is correctly made. The assessee is directed to produce copy of this judgment along with the work order and other details for the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter. Therefore, this revision case is allowed by vacating the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessment confirmed in first appeal to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. If the assessee does not produce the records or appear before the Assessing Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the Assessing Officer can treat the reassessment as final. If the assessee produces records along with a copy of this judgment, the Assessing Officer will reconsider the assessment afresh and make modifications to the extent necessary. This S.T.Revision case is allowed as above.
-
2011 (12) TMI 654 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - whether input tax credit was liable to be reduced proportionately by 25% to the extent of manufacture of tax exempted "Chaff" ("Chokar") in the process of manufacture of "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji", which are taxable wheat products and for manufacture of which the wheat was purchased by the respondent-assessee upon payment of Sales Tax/VAT and full input tax credit in respect of which was claimed u/s 18 of the Act against the tax payable by the assessee on the sale of "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji" during the period in question? - Section 18 of the VAT Act of 2003.
Held that: - for the period in question before this Court in the present case, namely, 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2006 is prior to the amendment w.e.f. 02.04.2008 and, therefore, bran of wheat or Chaff/Chokar was exempted goods under Schedule-I of the VAT Act and there is no dispute on this from the side of the assessee - Admittedly, while the wheat bran, the exempted goods, were sold as exempted goods and were obtained in the process of manufacture of taxable goods viz. "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji" as merely byproduct Section 18 of the Act of 2003 does not make any distinction between such byproduct or final product, which are taxable goods for the manufacture of which the raw material, namely, wheat was used.
Input tax credit in the present case, was rightly reduced and was allowed only proportionately to the extent of manufacturing and sale of taxable goods by the assessee in the present case, namely, "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji", manufactured out of raw material (wheat) and such input tax credit could not be allowed to the extent of sale of VAT exempted goods, namely, wheat bran (Chaff/Chokar), which has been assessed by the Assessing Authority to the extent of 25% of the input tax credit and reverse tax has been imposed on the respondent-assessee.
Revision petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of Revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 649 - CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY
... ...
... ... ..... ngal and Jharkhand which have collected the tax to transfer the refundable amount to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the context of the order based by authorities below that is being affirmed by the order in this appeal. It was pointed out that what was paid by way of tax to those States would not exceed the tax now demanded by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh could not raise any valid objection to it. I am satisfied that a direction must be issued to the States of West Bengal and Jharkhand, to transfer the refundable amount of tax based on this order, to the State of Andhra Pradesh to which tax under the Act is due in respect of the transactions in question. In the result, I confirm the order of the Appellate Tribunal and dismiss the appeal but directing the States of West Bengal and Jharkhand, to transfer the refundable amount of tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh to which tax is due on these two transactions. I make no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ey ORDER Dismissed. For order see our order of date passed in Writ Tax No. 1484 of 2007, I.T.C. Limited V. State of U.P. & Ors.
-
2011 (12) TMI 528 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt dated 5th October, 2010 read with order dated 29th November, 2010, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file objections on or before 6th January, 2012. In case objections are filed within the aforesaid period, the same will not be dismissed on the ground that they are barred by limitation, as we have excluded the period during which the aforesaid writ petitions had remained pending and the period during which the inquiry was conducted. It is clarified that till the objections are disposed of, no further recovery will be made. It is also clarified that the Division Bench while passing the order dated 5th October, 2010 had not commented upon or expressed any view on merits of the claim or payment, tax or penalty imposed by the VATO. The objections once filed will be decided in accordance with law and as per the Act. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under signature of the Court Master.
-
2011 (12) TMI 510 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arat Ji Agarwal,Piyush Agrawal For The Respondent C.S.C. JUDGMENT Dismissed
-
2011 (12) TMI 495 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Validity of audit assessment order passed by DCST under Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 – Applicability of period of limitation - Whether the assessing authority is empowered to utilize any adverse report other than the audit visit report against a dealer while making audit assessment under rule 12(3) of the CST(O) Rules read with section 42 of the OVAT Act - Held that:- The audit assessment and assessment of escaped turnover cover separate and distinct field for the purpose of assessment - while in the case of audit assessment, the maximum period of limitation is one year, in the case of assessment of turnover escaping assessment, the period of limitation is five years - Both the assessments have to be completed within the respective period of limitation as provided under the statute - while making audit assessment as provided under rule 12(3), the assessing authority has no power/authority to utilize any material against the dealer other than the materials available in the audit report - the period of five years provided under the statute for completing assessment of escaped turnover cannot be restricted to one year as provided in case of audit assessment - when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all - other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden - the settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "expression unius est exclusio alterius", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible - the assessing authority is not justified in utilizing the fraud report dated May 2, 2011 against the petitioner-dealer while making audit assessment on the basis of audit visit report dated September 30, 2010.
Violation of principles of natural justice – Held that:- Giving eight days’ time to explain the allegations raised against the dealer-petitioner in the report dated May 2, 2011 which is in 20 volumes covering more than 4,000 pages cannot be said that reasonable opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of assessment.
Whether the assessing authority is justified in passing assessment order by generalizing the entire claim of stock transfer on the strength of findings arrived at on scrutinizing some transactions of stock transfer – Held that:- While examining the transaction of stock transfer, the assessing authority is required to examine each and every transaction to find out the genuineness of the claim - the onus of proving always lies upon the taxing authority to show that a particular sale or sales is/are exigible to tax under the Act – the order is set aside with a direction to the assessing authority to pass the audit assessment order afresh exclusively on the basis of audit visit report – Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2011 (12) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Order passed u/s 65 the Gujarat Sales Tax Act – Attachment of property - Sales tax benefit in form of deferment - petitioner being the bona fide purchaser - Held that:- Purchase of the property was by Smt. Meena Parikh, who had purchased it from the State Bank of India, which had sold it after invoking notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the total area of the land is 7,000 sq. meters and the area of the land purchased by the present petitioner was 4,812 sq. meters on August 31, 2007 by an entry No. 4497 effected in the Revenue record - prior to the purchase, there was no objection raised against that and as rightly pointed that sales tax dues cannot claim priority over the secured dues of the bank - The bank after exercising its powers had sold the same by way of an auction.
In Tax Recovery Officer v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India [2012 (8) TMI 541 - Gujarat High Court] it has been held that unsecured Crown debt has no priority over secured debt of a secured creditor - there is nothing on record to suggest that under the Central Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder priority of charge over the secured debt has been created – no such law has been brought on record to suggest that the Central Government has any first charge or priority over the secured or unsecured debt - dues of the Sales Tax Department cannot have primacy over the secured debt of banks – the petitioner was fully secured by the Kabulatnama given in his favour by both Smt. Meena Parikh and the directors of the erstwhile company.
The purchaser has purchased the property for value without notice from the auction held by secured creditor-financial institution - It cannot be affected by any subsequent attachment nor by way of any earlier deed on the part of the erstwhile owners and, therefore, on both these counts also the title of the present petitioner cannot be affected - therefore, any notice issued in relation to the land purchased by the present petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on and by an entry mutated cannot be effected and the same requires to be protected by way of an order in this petition - in the wake of the order dated August 4, 2009, in appeal under section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, though has put an end to the liability of the erstwhile owner, even if there are any dues remaining to be recovered from the owner from the remaining portion of the land, out of the total admeasuring 4812 sq. meters executed in favour of the present petitioner by way of a registered sale dated August 31, 2007 by an entry No. 5417, the Sales Tax Department can initiate actions against erstwhile owners or the subsequent transfer Shri Meena Parikh but that in any manner cannot affect the title of the present petitioner – thus, the first order of attachment dated July 18, 2003 and the second order of attachment dated August 23, 2008 recorded vide entry No. 2155 are quashed - the petitioner being the bona fide purchaser value without notice Sales Tax Department shall not proceed with the sale of the property – Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2011 (12) TMI 492 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 - consequential recovery notice - Held that:- While passing the impugned orders, the Assistant Commissioner has not assigned any reason for imposing the penalty except observing that the explanation of the dealer is not in accordance with law. The impugned orders indicate that the reply to the show-cause notice which was filed by the petitioner and the explanation submitted by him has not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner in proper perspective. The impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, non-assigning of reasons and appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner. Appeal allowed. Penalty order set aside.
-
2011 (12) TMI 491 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h adverts to a seller holding a trade mark. The Tribunal has taken the view that "holding a This copy was printed from trade mark" must refer to "holding a registered trade mark". In the present case, the mark of the applicant was registered on October 31, 1996 with effect from July 12, 1988. We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application for a reference which raises a substantial question of law which would warrant a decision by this court. We, accordingly, dispose of the application by directing the Tribunal to submit the following question of law for reference to this court "(i) Whether on a proper interpretation of section 2(26) read with the Explanation thereto, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the phrase 'trade mark' refers to a 'registered trade mark' and not to an 'unregistered trade mark'?" The sales tax application shall accordingly stand disposed of in these terms.
-
2011 (12) TMI 490 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the business place of the assessee. Having heard the learned counsels, this court is of the opinion that it would be premature to decide the validity of show-cause notice in the present writ petition. The assessee is expected to explain the discrepancies in the valuation or quantity of imports shown in the regular books of accounts. It cannot be said that the notices issued are without jurisdiction. It is the duty of the anti evasion authority to prevent and check the evasion of tax and therefore, upon a survey of business place, if certain discrepancies are found by the assessing authority, then show-cause notice can always be issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish his explanation in the matter. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition against the issuance of show-cause notice only. Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 489 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
State Development Tax - Whether in view of the Notification No.1307 dated 28.4.2005 since full rebate was allowed by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order dated 6.10.2007 of trade tax on account of entry tax having been paid at the full rate of 5%, hence no State Development Tax can be legally levied in view of clause (iii) of Notification No.1307 dated 28.4.2005?
Held that:- The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is completely misplaced. Each and every clause of the notification refers to a separate category of commodity and can stand on its own. The Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that one condition is connected to the other, that cannot be the case because every clause refers to specify benefits under specific sections and gives specific relief. The case of the assessee is covered under clause (iii) of the said notification, as his case was a payment of rebate being allowed to the full extent at the rate of 5%. This was allowed to him for having paid entry tax at the rate of 5%. Because the assessee had paid entry tax at the rate of 5% he was given the benefit of not having to pay the State Development Tax. The other clauses are not connected with the rebate factor at all.
Thus claim made by the assessee under Section 3-H (4) (d) should have been allowed. The order of the Tribunal is,therefore, set aside. In favour of the assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 488 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tax evasion - penalty imposed - Held that:- By order, annexure P2, the assessing officer found that the assessee furnished incorrect return of the sales tax, evaded the tax on the basis of which assessing officer assessed for the additional tax and on this ground the penalty was imposed, and except this, no finding was recorded even by the revisional authority that there was deliberate concealment of sale or the assessees were guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation, failing which the aforesaid order imposing penalty cannot be sustained.
Thus the orders passed by the authorities imposing penalty on the petitioners are not in accordance with the law laid down by the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court] and Anantharam [1980 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] and accordingly both the orders are not sustainable under the law and are quashed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 487 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appearing for the State and scrutinised the material on record. The material on record including the order passed by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority would clearly show that though no objection is filed by the assessee in response to the showcause notice issued to it, the authorities have not done the exercise of finding out as to whether the impugned transaction is consignment sale or is inter-State sale and wherefore the order of remand made by the Tribunal is justified. Since all the contentions are kept open to be urged before the assessing officer and the assessing officer is required to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the appeal before the Tribunal, we do not find any question of law that requires to be determined in this revision petition. Accordingly we hold that the revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly we pass the following ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 486 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the facts of the case are still in realm of dispute it would be in the best interest of justice as well as the Department that the products, which are being sold and traded by the assessee are subjected to a chemical analysis test, which may be carried out by a Government approved laboratory to testify as to what is the percentage of sugar and thereafter the assessing authority may pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The chemical analysis may be carried out within the next two months from the date a certified copy of this order is being placed before the authority concerned. A copy of this order may be placed before the authority within a period of one week from today. The assessing authority may pass fresh orders thereafter in accordance with law within a period of next three months. In view of the directions given above, the order of the Tribunal dated July 21, 2007 is set aside. Fresh orders may be passed in accordance with law. All the revisions stand disposed of.
-
2011 (12) TMI 485 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Denial of the claim for refund, in respect of exemption from the liability to pay purchase tax with retrospective effect - Held that:- The purchase tax paid by the petitioner has already been passed on to the customers, not as purchase tax, collection of which is prohibited under section 22(2)(b), but by including the same in the cost price and then fixing the appropriate "sale price". This is not a case where the liability to pay purchase tax is disputed by the petitioner. The purpose of granting retrospective exemption is stated as in tune with public interest. However, on comparison with the other limb of the "public interest", i.e., the State exchequer who had already obtained the tax paid and had provided necessary budget allocation shall not be let to be dried up, this court has necessarily to adopt a purposive interpretation.
In the above circumstances, this court finds that the claim for refund put forth by the petitioner, challenging the correctness and sustainability of exhibit P1 assessment order, is quite wrong and misconceived. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.
-
2011 (12) TMI 484 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - Held that:- We are afraid, we cannot countenance any of the submissions made by him. We may reiterate that, even the explanation offered is contrary to the orders dated December 2, 1997 of the CCT, and therefore, delay cannot be said to be reasonable. In a case of this nature, if the delay is condoned, it would certainly occasion injustice to the other party.
-
2011 (12) TMI 483 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the order dated March 10, 2010 passed by the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, in form VAT-124 cancelling the registration of the firm, M/s. Santosh Dhaba Exclusive, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is illegal on the ground that it was passed without notice to the petitioner?
Held that:- It should be noted that rule 14(12) of the Rules says that whenever any order of cancellation is made the VAT dealer shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Further rule 63 of the Rules deals with nomination of responsible person by a VAT dealer in form 560 authorising him/her to sign any returns or any documents or to sign any statements and also to receive any notices and rule 63(2) says that every VAT dealer being a partnership firm, among other entities, shall nominate a person for the purposes of receiving orders and notices. The first respondent or the third respondent are not able to file any document to show that the firm in question nominated the managing partner as person responsible to receive notices on behalf of it.
It is true that rule 14(12) does not in so many words indicate anywhere that in the case of a firm, with which we are now concerned, notice to the managing partner of the firm in question is sufficient notice even in the absence of himself being nominated as the person responsible under rule 63(2). It is the contention of Smt Anjali Agarwal that in view of the above situation non-issuance of notice to her vitiates the impugned order. The jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary one and in a given case the court can refuse to interfere if interference is not warranted even if there is violation of rules of natural justice.
........
|
