|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1179 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 886 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Restoration of registration - Held that: - It is required to be noted that as such the learned Tribunal has not discussed anything with respect to finding recorded by the First Revisional Authority on the genuineness of the transactions of sale and purchase by the respondent and the finding recorded by the First Revisional Authority that the respondent had indulged into billing activities only. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned Tribunal on the findings recorded by the First Revisional Authority. While passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has stated that considering the entire circumstances, the documents and the payment the applicant has made as per our direction, the Tribunal is of the view that the registration of the original applicant is to be restored. The aforesaid can hardly be said to have been given cogent reasons. Even subsequent payment of ITC wrongly claimed and that too before the Tribunal can hardly be a ground to restore the registration. Having found that the assessee / trader has indulged into billing activities only and has wrongly claimed the ITC and thereafter the registration is cancelled, and thereafter before the Tribunal the assessee / trader agrees to deposit the amount of ITC wrongly claimed, the same can hardly be a ground to restore the registration. Necessary consequences of wrong availment of ITC i.e. cancellation of registration shall follow - it is required to be noted that in the present case the respondent had specifically admitted that it was not entitled to ITC of ₹ 4,45,645/and that he wrongly claimed / availed the ITC of ₹ 4,45,645/ - It is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has not given any specific finding that the Tribunal does not agree with the finding recorded by the First Revisional Authority on the genuineness of the transactions of sale and purchase by the respondent and that the respondent had indulged into billing activities only. Without giving such finding, the learned Tribunal is not justified in directing to restore the registration - Petition allowed - decided against respondent-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 885 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of attached bank property - return of books of account and other documents seized under Section 67(4) of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondents pointing out that by efflux of time the order of freezing the Bank Account under Section 45 of the VAT Act has expired - In that case of the matter, the cause so far as challenge to freezing of the Bank Account does not survive.
Return of the books of account and other documents - petitioner's request that if for the purpose of filing reply in the assessment proceedings the petitioner’s representative is permitted to inspect the said documents / books of account, the petitioner will be satisfied - Held that: - the request of petitioner in this regard accepted - if the representative of the petitioner approaches the concerned Officer for inspection of the books of account and other documents seized, the the account same shall be considered and the representative of the petitioner shall be given inspection of the books of account and other documents seized.
Petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 884 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - whether the AO can make additions solely relying upon the third party statement and without any further corroborative evidence - Held that: - solely on the basis of information gathered by another officer on the basis of visit made outside the State in the premise of T.R.Somani & Sons and Bhavna Trade Agencies, in which, there is reference of sale by them to appellant-assessee, the addition is made - Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Kantibhai Revidas Patel [2013 (11) TMI 972 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where the Assessing Officer made the additions on the basis of statement of third party and on the basis of other documents recovered from the third party premises. The learned CIT(A) deleted the the said additions by stating that in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, the said addition cannot be made on the basis of presumption and on the basis of statement of any third party and particularly when seized document was recovered from the third party premises.
In the present case, there is no other corroborative evidence collected by the AO justifying the addition in exercise of powers on reassessment, more particularly, with respect to sale of the goods by T.R.Somani & Sons and Bhavna Trade Agencies alleged to have been made to the appellant. Without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant to confront the said material and / or without giving any opportunity to cross examine them, straightway and solely relying upon the same, in exercise of powers of reassessment, the AO has made addition, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that AO could not have made additions solely relying upon the third party statement and without any further corroborative evidence - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 883 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether the impugned order of assessment dated 27.04.2016 could be said as in breach of principles of natural justice or not? - Held that: - It is hardly required to be stated that it is true that by way of self-imposed restriction when the alternative remedies are available, this Court in exercise of the power in Article 226 of the Constitution may decline to entertain the petition but such bar of self- imposed restriction may not apply if there is ex facie breach of principles of natural justice.
In the present case as observed by us hereinabove, the impugned order at Annexure ‘D’ can be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice and hence it would be in appropriate case to interfere with the order and to set aside the same, since it is in breach of the principles of natural justice in as much as that the so-called re vised notice dated 11.03.2016 which has been taken into consideration by the assessing authority has not been served nor the appellant has been given any opportunity to meet with the same.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order for assessment dated 27.04.2016 Annexure ‘D’ are set aside with the further observation that the matter shall stand restored to the file of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, for re-assessment - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 821 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of VAT - Franchise agreement - whether Franchisee agreement amounts to transaction of "transfer of the right to use goods" for the purpose of levy of Value Added Tax (in short 'VAT") or the factum that petitioner since paying service tax, whether will stand absolved from liability of tax under VAT Act, 2008"? - Held that: - Right to use property, i.e., Brand name for consideration is a 'sale' under the definition of 'sale' in VAT Act, 2008 read with Article 366 (29A) of Constitution and on amount of consideration, VAT is chargeable. If there is simultaneously other activities which may come within the definition of 'service', petitioner may be liable to pay "service tax" on that or those aspect(s) but consideration of transfer of right to use Brand name, i.e., goods, is exigible to VAT having satisfied the definitions of "goods" and "sale".
Grant of non-exclusive licence to Franchisee for use of Brand name of petitioner under the agreement for consideration is exigible to tax under VAT Act, 2008.
If there is a composite transaction, part whereof amounts to sale of goods and other aspects amount to service, both taxes on different aspects are leviable and dominant intention test is no more available.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deletion of tax levied on out and out sale of ₹ 7,84,182/with consequential interest - exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 from that of out and out sale under Section 4 of the said Act - “C” Forms - inter state sale u/s 6(2) - Held that: - The appellant before the Tribunal and respondent before us produced a chart showing out and out sale and the relevant documents. These documents were perused by the Tribunal with the assistance of both the Advocates appearing for the dealer and the Revenue. No objection was raised to the course adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had perused before it the entire set of documents, including the purchase order and the details of supply. It found that the goods were despatched from Madhya Pradesh to Hyderabad on 22-3-2004 in pursuance of a purchase order dated 2-3-2004. All the documents evidencing this were produced. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded, as a matter of fact, that the goods have directly gone to the purchasing party at Hyderabad, without entering the State of Maharashtra. Hence, the appellant before it and the respondent before us was not obliged to produce the “C” Form. It was found, as a matter of fact, that the State of Maharashtra cannot levy, assess and recover the central sales tax as the goods have not moved from Maharashtra. That is how the levy of tax to the extent of ₹ 1,19,980/was deleted - the entire exercise is factual in nature. Based on the undisputed factual position, the claim was granted - The direction to delete the tax in the light of the admitted documentary evidence, therefore, cannot be faulted - application dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 819 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment of high value transactions - Government Representative Cell (GR Cell) to represent the case before the AO before adjudicating the case - Legality of circular dated 30.07.2016 - Held that: - On considering and going through the Circulars it appears that they are issued with a view to see that there is a proper and fair government representation before the Assessing Officer / Adjudicating Officer and more particularly in the case of high value cases. The Circulars have been issued to protect the interest of the Revenue and the public exchequer. It cannot be disputed that as per the old practice there was no independent representation on behalf of the government. The dealers were represented through their consultant / Advocates. Therefore, strictly speaking the entire burden was upon the Assessing Officers. The Assessing Officers though being quasi judicial officers can be said to be representing the case of the Department also. Therefore, with a view to see that there is a proper government representation before the Assessing Officer / Adjudicating Officer like before the High Court and the Tribunal, it has been decided to form the GR Cell who after considering the material on record including the submissions made on behalf of the dealer would prepare the case in consultation with the Authorities forming part of the GR Cell and the same are required to be produced before the Assessing Officer / Adjudicating Officer and the Circulars further provide that thereafter the Assessing Officer / Adjudicating Officer is required to pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering the submissions made on behalf of the Government as well as made on behalf of the Dealer - From the procedure which is provided under the Circulars, it cannot be said that there is any external interference in exercise of quasi judicial functions by the Assessing Officers / Adjudicating Officers - the challenge to the impugned Circulars dated 30.07.2016 fails.
Requirement of sending the case papers to the respondent No.1 for preaudit - Held that: - the same is liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Tanuj Agency Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (6) TMI 727 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that the procedure adopted by the department was wholly unauthorised and impermissible in law. To be bound by an order of higher authority in an administrative set up is entirely different from the discretion of a statutory authority being governed by an outside agency.
Impugned action on the part of the first Appellate Authority to send the draft order to the higher Authority for preaudit is hereby quashed and set aside - challenge to circular fails - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 818 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment orders - assessment made in spite of presence of documentary evidence - Held that: - it would be relevant to take note of the observations of this Court in the case of Dharani Sugars and Chemicals vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), [2014 (12) TMI 1218 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that if the assessing officer was of the view that the documents were not adequate to establish their claim, then fairness demands that the petitioner/dealer should have been issued a notice in this regard, information should have been called for, they should have been directed to appear in person and produce all records. However, the assessing officer appears to have drawn an adverse inference while passing the assessing order which is contrary to law. - matter remanded back.
-
2016 (12) TMI 817 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Assessment order - non production of Form C - non-production of Form H Declarations - reversal of ITC u/s.19[5][c] of TNVAT Act - Held that: - In terms of the circular 23367/93 dated 30.04.1993, no strict guidelines have been fixed for production of such declaration forms and the object of production of these forms is to enable the dealer to avail concessional rate of tax. Therefore, a rigid and strict interpretation cannot be done in this regard and the Assessing Officer would be justified in accepting the forms even after the assessment is completed - this Court is of the view that the assessment can be re-done afresh after receiving Forms C and H declarations, which the petitioner is in position as on date.
With regard to the proposal u/s.19[2][v] is concerned, since the petitioner is yet to challenge statutory provision before this Court, the court has given liberty to raise objections on the said issue.
Petition allowed - matter on remand - petitioner is granted four weeks time to produce Forms C and H Declarations and also submit further objections to the proposals to reverse ITC u/s.19[5][c] and on receipt of the same, the respondent shall re-do the assessment in accordance with law.
-
2016 (12) TMI 757 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reversal of ITC - manufacture of castings and valves out of the raw materials purchased from the local registered dealers - reversal on the ground that the ITC claimed on the capital goods is not eligible to be refunded to the dealer/petitioner, and restricted the claim of refund, by estimating 5% of the purchase value to be 'Invisible Loss' and 1% of the Export sales turnover to be 'Visible Loss' - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of M/s. Interfit Techno Products Ltd. Versus The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) [2015 (4) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the Assessing Authorities are not justified in adopting uniform percentage as invisible loss and calling upon the dealer to reverse the input tax credit availed to that extent. Consequently, all notices issued to the petitioner for reopening and all consequential order passed reversing the input tax credit to the extent of either 4% or 5% or on adhoc percentage stands set aside. However, liberty is granted to the concerned Assessing Officer to issue appropriate show cause notices to the petitioners clearly setting out under what circumstances they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after inviting objections proceed in accordance with law.
Petition allowed - reversal of ITC set aside - liberty is granted to the concerned Assessing Officer to issue appropriate show cause notices to the petitioners clearly setting out under what circumstances they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after inviting objections proceed in accordance with law - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 756 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reversal of Input tax credit - stock transfers - The petitioner's case is that they never undertook a stock transfer of goods so purchased inside the State of Tamil Nadu. As a result, there was no occasion for the petitioner to reverse the Input Tax Credit under section 19(4) of the VAT Act. - Held that: - In terms of the provision under sub-section (1) of Section 63A, every registered dealer whose total turnover including zero-rate sale and sale in the course of inter-state trade or commerce as specified in section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in a year, exceeds one crore rupees, shall get his accounts in respect of that year, audited by an Accountant and submit a report of such audit in the prescribed Form, duly signed and verified by the Accountant, to the Assessing authority, within such period as may be fixed.
Thus, the petitioner's turnover having exceeded Rupees One Crore, they are required to file the Audit Report and they have got time to file the Audit Report i.e. within nine months from the end of the financial year and the end of the financial year was 31.03.2016. Therefore, the respondent/assessing officer has to necessarily await the Audit Report, as the statute provides time limit for the petitioner to submit the same.
The impugned order is set aside and the respondent is entitled to pass final assessment order after the petitioner files the Audit Report in terms of Section 63-A of the TNVAT Act, within the time prescribed under Rule 16(1) of the TNVAT Rules and in the event the respondent for any valid reason does not accept the report, then the respondent is directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law - petition allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 755 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of order of assessment - change in place of business - assessment circle has been now shifted to the jurisdiction of the second respondent - principles of natural justice - Held that: - On a bare perusal of the impugned assessment order, dated 06.01.2015, it shows that the petitioner did not have any opportunity to submit their objections and the impugned assessment order has been passed without even issuing a show-cause notice. This is sufficient to hold that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, in respect of the transactions covered by the 'C' forms, the first respondent has given credit to the those 'C' forms and applied the concessional rate of tax. But, however, with regard to the transactions not covered by 'C' forms, the higher rate of tax has been imposed and the export documents were not called for and considered. Therefore, the claim for exemption was totally disallowed - Since this Court has convinced that the impugned assessment order dated 06.01.2015 is in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is required to be set-aside in so far as revised higher rate of tax in respect of transactions not covered by 'C' forms and in respect of dis allowance of the exemption on account of not considering the export documents and transit sale documents. Therefore, to that instant, the impugned order dated 06.01.2015 is quashed. Having held so, the impugned demand, dated 28.04.2016 also required to be set-aside with further directions.
At this juncture, it is relevant to point out the Circular issued by the Principal Commissioner, dated 28.02.2011 with regard to acceptance of the statutory forms - The above circular issued by the Commissioner binds the assessing officer. Therefore, belated production of Form 'C' declarations cannot be a sole ground to reject the same. That apart, the first respondent while completing the assessment did not consider the export sale documents and the transit sale documents nor those documents were called for, but assessment was completed ex-prate. Therefore, Form 'C' declarations that the petitioner may produce and the export documents and the transit sale documents should be considered by the second respondent.
The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration, who shall direct the petitioner to appear for personal hearing and permit the petitioner to produce Form 'C' declarations, export documents and transit sale documents etc., and on perusal of those documents and after hearing the petitioner's objections, the assessment shall be redone in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 754 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - whether “purified water” sold by the assessee in loose jars would fall under Entry 154 of Schedule IIA to the Sales Tax Act as contended on behalf of the Revenue or it would fall under Entry 93 of Schedule I to the Sales Tax Act as contended on behalf of the assessee? - Held that: - when the assessee is selling the purified water in a jar having the capacity of 5 or 10 liters, having a top which is closed, it cannot be said that the assessee is selling the purified water in a sealed jar. Similarly, it cannot be said that the assessee is selling the purified water in a corked bottle, jar or pouch. However, considering the dictionary meaning of the word “Capsule”, it can be said that the assessee is selling the purified water under the brand name (Shital) in a capsuled jar. As per the meaning of “capsule” in the Oxford Dictionary and other general dictionaries, “Capsule” means a small case or container; a top or cover for a bottle; contains small or compact; enclose in or provide with a capsule. Under the circumstances, when the assessee is selling the purified water under the brand name “Shital” in a capsule jar i.e. in the jars / water jugs having the capacity of 5 or 10 liters and having a top which is closed, it can be said that the assessee is selling the “purified water” under the brand name in a capsuled jar and therefore, Entry 154 of Schedule IIA of the Sales Tax Act shall be attracted and the “purified water’ sold by the assessee fall under Entry 154 of Schedule IIA of the Sales Tax Act.
Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 696 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
ITC - ‘Product Information Literature’ - ‘Laboratory Stores’ - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was justified in law in holding that ‘Product Information Literature’ and ‘Laboratory Stores’ purchased by the appellant was not eligible for Inputs Tax Credit under the provisions of Section 11(3)(a)(vi) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003? - Held that: - the “laboratory stores” used in the laboratory unit for testing at pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing stage are required to be held as “consumable stores” and therefore, are required to be held as “raw materials used in the manufacture”, as the requirement of testing is mandatory under Rule 22.4 of the Rules, 1945 and unless and until such a test is conducted and/or carried out the final product is not commercially saleable/marketable. Under the circumstances, the assessee shall be entitled to the Input Tax Credit under Section 11(3)(a)(vi) of the VAT Act on the “laboratory stores” such as glassware/glass tube, raw material, chemical etc. used in the laboratory for testing at pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing stage. The question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
‘Product Information Literature’ - Held that: - The ‘Product Information Literature” which is mandatorily required under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 and unless and until such information mentioned in the “Production Information Literature” is provided, the final product/drug cannot be sold. For the reasons stated above, it is to be held consumable stores and therefore, raw material as defined under Section 2(19) of the VAT Act and therefore, being the raw material used in manufacture of taxable goods i.e. in the present case the drugs, the assessee shall be entitled to the Input Tax Credit on such “Product Information Literature”. It is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that on such “Product Information Literature” giving the information as required under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 and to be pasted on the box containing the drug, the assessee is entitled to the Input Tax Credit.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 695 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty - detention of goods - clandestine removal - extra goods found loaded in the truck, apart from what was evident from the records - Held that: - The fact, clearly shows that the authorities themselves have found the goods covered by bill No.24 dated 22.4.2002 and form-31 No.F/JJ-0952524 were being imported in accordance with law. No discrepancy or breach of any of the provisions of the Act, was found. Under the circumstances, there was no occasion to levy penalty under Section 15-A (1)(o) of the Act with respect to the goods covered by the aforesaid bill.
Justification of penalty upon the assessee with respect to the extra found metal waste of 2000 Kgs. - Held that: - the assessee has clearly stated that he has no concern with extra found goods and thereupon such extra found goods were seized and the same were released on deposit of security by one Subhash Chand. There is no finding in the penalty order that the extra found goods of 2000 Kgs. belong to the assessee and the same were got released by him. On the contrary, the transporter had also issued a certificate that the assessee has no concern with the aforesaid 2000 Kgs. metal scrap. This certificate was also filed before the authority. Under the circumstances, there was no evidence before the assessing authority or the first appellate authority or the Tribunal for import or transport of extra found metal waste by the assessee in contravention of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Under the circumstances, with respect to those goods, no penalty could have been imposed upon the assessee.
Penalty set aside - revision allowed - The amount of penalty, if any, deposited by the assessee shall be refunded by the assessing authority within four weeks from today along with interest from the date of deposit. The revision is allowed with costs of ₹ 5,000/-which shall be paid by the respondent to the assessee within four weeks - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 694 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - one important legal ground has not been raised by the petitioner both before the Assessing Officer and before the Appellate Authority - section 84 Act - Held that: - Section 84 of the said Act gives power to the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority including the Appellate Tribunal, at any time, within five years from the date of any order passed by it, to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. It may be true that the petitioner has not raised this ground specifically in the grounds of appeal before the second respondent. Nevertheless, this being a legal contention, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted one opportunity to raise the same before the Appellate Authority by way of an application under Section 84 of the said Act - the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 84 of the said Act before the Appellate Authority in A.P.No.130/13 VAT within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such application is filed, the second respondent-Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass a speaking order - decided in favor of petitioner-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 693 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - principles of natural justice - Held that: - It is seen that the respondent has taken note of the C-Form declarations, which were produced by the petitioner along with the letter dated 27.10.2016. If that be the case, the respondent could have granted some more time or passed an order either accepting or rejecting the request for adjournment. This has not been done by the respondent. Thus, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice in the manner, in which, the assessment has been completed - this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned assessment order, as partial relief has been granted to the petitioner in the impugned proceedings and proposes to pass the following order, which will meet the ends of justice and also protect the interest of the Revenue (i) The petitioner is directed to treat the impugned assessment order dated 14.11.2016 as a show cause notice and submit their objections along with documents, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (ii) On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law and (iii) Till such time, the demand for the tax, as quantified in the impugned order, shall be kept in abeyance.
Petition disposed off.
-
2016 (12) TMI 692 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - rectification of mistake - Section 84 of the Act - Held that: - the language employed in the said provision confers power on the Assessing Authority or an Appellate or Revising Authority including the Appellate Tribunal at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, if the dealer is able to point out the errors which are apparent on the face of the record, then obviously the Authority can exercise its powers. However, in case where the Assessing Authority refused to exercise power, he should spell out the reason as to how he is of the prima facie view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, the said finding is lacking as the order dated 24.12.2013 is devoid of reasons. Hence, to that extent, this Court is inclined to interfere in the orders passed by the respondent.
The writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 24.12.2013 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 84 of the Act is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall re-consider the petitioner's application for rectification of error dated 13.12.2013, afford an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the matter in its entirety, pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law on the two issues which have been pointed out by the petitioner, namely, with regard to the error in inclusion of the purchase turnover which has been exempted and with regard to the sale of assets.
-
2016 (12) TMI 632 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - Cross-verification / invoice wise mismatch - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the respondent, has selectively referred to certain portions of the petitioner's objections and has not dealt with the entire objections, did not furnish the documents sought for, did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and did not deal with the applicability or otherwise of the decisions referred to by the petitioner, but proceeded on a ground that there was no document filed by the petitioner to substantiate the movement of the goods for confirmation of the purchase made from local registered dealers. Thus, it is clear that the respondent has misdirected himself in completing the assessments and the manner, in which, the assessments have been completed, is not tenable.
The writ petitions are partly allowed, the impugned orders are set aside in so far as the finding rendered by the respondent with regard to cross verification (invoice wise mismatch) and the matters are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration.
-
2016 (12) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Writ jurisdiction - opportunity to represent the case - Held that: -
Considering the substantial questions of law which arise in the present petition, we are of the opinion that the present petition is not required to be dismissed on the ground that the present petition is at the show cause notice stage. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Aircel Limited and Anr [2016 (6) TMI 1063 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Considering the fact that pure questions of law had arisen, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, by which, the petition was not entertained on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and has observed that questions that have been raised by the original petitioner being absolutely pure question of law, the High Court should have decided the matter. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above and as pure question of law arise which as per the opinion, are required to be decided by the High Court, preliminary objection raised by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General is hereby overruled - matter to be remitted to High Court - petition disposed off.
........
|
