|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1179 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 373 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Priority of Charge - mortgage of property - whether the Financial Institution, which is a secured creditor, or the department of the government concerned, would have the 'Priority of Charge' over the mortgaged property in question, with regard to the tax and other dues? - Held that:- Considering the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 41 of the same seeking to introduce Section 31B in the Principal Act, there is, thus, no doubt that the rights of a secured creditor to realise secured debts due and payable by sale of assets over which security interest is created, would have priority over all debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or Local Authority. This section introduced in the Central Act is with ''notwithstanding'' clause and has come into force from 01.09.2016.
The law having now come into force, naturally it would govern the rights of the parties in respect of even a lis pending.The aforesaid would, thus, answer question (a) in favour of the financial institution, which is a secured creditor having the benefit of the mortgaged property.
Status and the rights of a third party purchaser of the mortgaged property - Held that:- The same is stated to relate only to auction sales, which may be carried out in pursuance to the rights exercised by the secured creditor having a mortgage of the property. This aspect is also covered by the introduction of Section 31B, as it includes ''secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created''.
-
2016 (12) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Benefit of concessional rate of tax - duplicate part of the C-Forms produced by the petitioner not considered - Held that: - The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax [1989 (1) TMI 351 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] considered an identical issue and held that where the dealer filed the duplicate part of Form C instead of the original, there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Central Act and those of Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, so as to entitle the dealer to get the benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the Central Act - the petitioner's case can be considered by taking into account the duplicate part of C-Form instead of the original.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall take note of the duplicate part of the C-Form instead of the original part, examine the correctness of the same and proceed further in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 371 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of Refund of the ITC u/s 18 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - making moulds for the manufacture of valves - Held that: - In Sara Leathers vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Tambaram I Assessment Circle, Chennai [2009 (10) TMI 848 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], this Court considered the scope of Section 18 of the TNVAT Act with particular reference of Section 18(2) of the TNVAT Act and pointed that Section 18(2) of the TNVAT Act is emphatic in its wording, the dealer referred to therein to claim a refund is one who had paid the tax on purchase of those goods that are exported and such consumed goods used in the manufacture of other goods which are exported and are specified under sub-section (1) and in the said case, the petitioner was held to be entitled to the total refund. Thus, the respondent should consider the petitioner's case based on the stand taken by them that the raw materials purchased by them are used in the manufacture of other goods that are exported as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 18. This aspect having not been considered, the matter requires re-consideration.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 370 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/s 45(6) of GVAT Act - exemption u/s 49(2) of the Act - the department could not have levied the penalty after lapse of 9 years is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there is no time limit prescribed under the statute - Held that: - by the delay in initiation of the proceedings and / or imposing the penalty belatedly the assessee is benefited to the extent that the appellant will make the payment of penalty subsequently which otherwise the assessee was required to pay at the time of passing of the assessment order. It is required to be noted that the authority imposed the penalty of 90%, which came to be reduced by the learned Tribunal to 50%. Therefore, even interest of the assessee has also been protected to the aforesaid extent. However, at the same time the appellant may not be saddled with liability to pay the interest on the penalty for the interregnum period and the liability to pay interest on the penalty, if any, shall commence from the date of penalty i.e. in the present case 11.4.2001. To the aforesaid extent, present appeal is required to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
The order passed by the competent authority imposing penalty under Section 45(6) of the Act is hereby confirmed, subject to modification of the same to the extent that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, liability to pay interest on the amount of penalty, if any, shall commence from the date of order of penalty i.e. 11.04.2001 only - appeal disposed off
-
2016 (12) TMI 369 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Benefit of second sale exemption - Section 10 of the TNGST Act - the petitioner Agency was that they have failed to prove the movement of goods, with the details of freight paid, loading and unloading charges paid, way bill number with date, name and address of the transporters, etc. Further they have not produced any proof for the turnover for which they have claimed exemption and they refused to sign the statement including the stock reconciliation statement. The burden of proving that any transaction or any turnover of a dealer is not liable to tax lies on the dealer who is claiming exemption.
Held that: - the purchases effected from other companies i.e. other than SAIL have been denied the second sale exemptions. However, the Assessing Officer did not go into the merits of the assessment, but was solely carried away by the dispute with regard to the constitution of the petitioner and devoted much attention to the said contention and by over ruling the objections raised by the petitioner, confirmed the proposal in the pre-revision notice. Thus, the impugned orders are flawed for reasons that the merit of the assessments were not gone into by the Assessing Officer. So far as the constitution of the petitioner-M/s Steel Exchange House is concerned, various factual issues have been raised by the petitioner in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions which cannot be adjudicated in a Writ proceedings - the issue relating to the constitution of the erstwhile proprietary concern also requires to be considered afresh.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 368 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the petitioners herein, which are two units of National Textile Corporation Ltd., could be treated as two different entities and the transfer of yarn from one of the entity to the other, for the purpose of manufacture of cloth, which is an exempted commodity, would amount to sale? - Held that: - registration under the Sales Tax Act does not necessarily mean that the registered dealer becomes a separate legal entity different from its creator, namely, the company proper. In the instant case, there can hardly be any doubt on this issue, because the registration certificate issued to both the petitioners mentions that they are units of National Textile Corporation Ltd. This being not in dispute, ought not to have been brushed aside by the respondent.
The registration certificates of both the units state that they are units of National Textile Corporation Ltd. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings, insofar as treating both the petitioners as distinct legal entities and treating the inter units transfer of cotton and cotton yarn to the transferee, cannot be treated as sale transaction and the finding that merely, because there are two TIN numbers to treat both the units as separate units and the finding rendered by the respondent in this regard is wholly untenable.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision of assessment - non submission of C-Forms and dis-allowance of exemption on the aspect of export sale - whether the Appellate Authority can entertain an appeal against a revised order? - Held that: - This issue was considered by this Court in the earlier writ petition in the case of Artis Leathers Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) , The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) [2016 (9) TMI 824 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that as against the order of rectification passed resulting in the modification of the original order passed, the assessee has the right of appeal before the appellate forum.
The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to represent the appeal before the second respondent, within a period of 10 days - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dsallowance of the stock transfer effected by the petitioner in their depot Tada, which is in the State of Andhra Pradesh - whether inter-state sale or stock transfer? - Form-F - Held that: - the respondent has misdirected itself in not posing a right question for arriving at a correct conclusion. Had the respondent examined the correctness of Form-F Declaration and conducted an enquiry, by making necessary verification, then the respondent would have arrived at a correct conclusion and on account of the fact that the enquiry was not conducted, it has resulted in an erroneous order being passed. For all the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable and call for interference.
The matter is remanded to the respondent to conduct enquiry, examine the correctness of the Form-F Declaration and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 312 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Set off of tax - the respondent assessee is a manufacturer and purchased raw material during the assessment year 1994-95 after paying full tax @ 4% and as per the Notification, claimed set off @ 2.5% on such purchases made within the State of Rajasthan. Originally the Assessing Officer allowed the said set off, however, the same was reopened and in the reassessment order, after taking into consideration the objections, allowed set off of 1% only - Held that: - The Tax Board, in my view, has rightly considered the Notification dt 27.3.1995 and admittedly raw material purchased was used in the manufacture of iron and steel within the State of Rajasthan, and the rate in respect thereof could not exceed 1.5% as per the above Notification dt 6.3.1991. Admittedly the said Notification was in force and operative for the relevant assessment year and has been rescinded later- on, on 27.3.1995 by Circular No.726. The Tax Board has rightly applied the said Notification and in my view as well, once the Notification has correctly been applied, no question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order as it is a finding of fact - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 311 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - tyre, tubes and flaps - parts and accessories - rate of 1% should be applied in accordance with Entry No.8 of the Notification dt 24.3.2005 or 4% as prescribed in Entry No.19 - Held that: - though tyre and tubes can certainly be said to be parts and accessories, to be fitted in a motor vehicle, without which a motor vehicle cannot run on the road, but there is a specific Entry for tyre, tube and flaps being Entry No.19 as quoted hereinabove, which is very specific with a rate of 4%. Once there is a specific rate separately ascertainable of the commodity in dispute, in my view the same shall supersede the other Entries, if any. Taking into consideration the aforesaid Notification and the clear description of the items in dispute, in my view no ambiguity is noticed in the said Entry and both, the Tax Board as well as Additional Commissioner, have rightly come to the said conclusion. It may be true that if there is ambiguity, the benefit should be passed on to the dealer/manufacturer/producer - a bare perusal of the Notification does not show any ambiguity or doubt so that any benefit could be conferred on the petitioner - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 310 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemption from payment of tax on rice sold in the course of inter- State trade/commerce - payment of full tax on paddy from which rice is manufacture - Held that: - reliance placed in the judgement of the case of CTO v. M/s. Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills [2000 (3) TMI 1044 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] where it was held that the petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No.25 (Annexure/6) u/s. 8(5) of the CST where direction was not to pay any tax on the sales of rice made in the circumstances in which the petitioner has made - petition dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 260 - SC ORDER
Decision in the case of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd) , Subway Systems India Pvt Ltd Versus Union of India & Others [2016 (8) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - Notice may now be issued to the Union of India - In the meanwhile, there will be a stay against the recovery of sales tax.
-
2016 (12) TMI 259 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act, 2006 - objections given to the pre-revision notice, not considered - Held that: - This Court has time and again pointed out that it is high time that the Commercial Taxes Department shall dispense with the procedure of giving acknowledgment in 'Letter Delivery Book' as there is always room for complaints and grievances. It is not known as to why the Commercial Taxes Department, which is insisting upon filing 'E-Returns' by the dealers, is adopting a procedure of giving acknowledgment in 'Letter Delivery Book', which is an archaic and an old practice and it is high time, the Department shall abandon the same and give proper electronically generated acknowledgment.
The petitioner was issued with notice dated 18.5.2016 and in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in paragraph No.8, it is submitted that the petitioner's representatives appeared before the respondent and represented that they have submitted their reply to the earlier notices and the respondent stated that he would revert after reviewing the entire set of documents. However, the respondent passed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any objections - this Court is inclined to believe the stand taken by the petitioner that the reply dated 20.02.2015 was received by the respondent on 26.2.2015 in terms of the endorsement made in the 'Letter Delivery Book' and therefore holds that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order has to be held to be illegal - the petitioner is directed to treat the impugned proceedings as a show cause notice and submit further objections within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off - matter on remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 258 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1989 - manufacturers of Oil - jurisdiction of AO - Held that: - the benefit is only available upto 4.4.1994 and not later- on, and since in the instant cases, admittedly the assessment years involved are of 1995-96 on-wards, therefore, no benefit was available to the respondent assessees. Once the apex court has held that benefits are available upto 4.4.1994, no other authority could have taken any other view.
Levy of interest u/s 58 of the RST Act - Held that: - the interest is leviable, if the dealer or a person commits default in making payment of any amount of tax leviable or payable, and admittedly the tax has not paid on or after 4.4.1994 by the assessees and, therefore, in my view the tax having not been paid the interest was certainly leviable and has rightly been levied by the AO.
The revision petitions are required to be allowed and accordingly allowed - The orders passed by the Tax Board and DC(A), are hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the AO is sustained - decided in favor of AO.
-
2016 (12) TMI 257 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - the petitioner did not respond to the pre-revision notice and did not file any objections, assessment order passed by respondent - Held that: - As pointed out there were four issues arise for consideration. With regard to the first issue i.e., The Tax Deduction at Source, the respondent can very well verify the statements given by the Corporation of Chennai and take a fresh decision. So far issue No.2, Deemed Sales, the petitioner has given an explanation, which has not been specifically dealt with in the impugned order. With regard to the remaining two issues, i.e., Difference in the purchase turnover and Disallowance of ITC claimed on the purchases made from the unregistered dealers, the respondent has not furnished any particulars to enable the petitioner to submit an effective reply. The invoice details, name of the dealers and name of the registered dealers etc., have to be furnished, since these details have been culled out by the respondent from the official records / website.
The impugned orders call for interference. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set-aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 256 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) - incomplete declaration form - Held that: - there is a finding of fact recorded by all the three Authorities that the declaration form ST-18A was found blank in all respect, not filled-in and, therefore, the mandate of R.53 of the Act to carry a declaration form filled-in, in all respect has not been complied with and, therefore, the AO was well justified in coming to the said conclusion of imposing the penalty - the judgments of Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court] is squarely applicable on the facts of instant case where it was held that Section 78(5) of the RST Act 1994 (section 22A(7)(a) of the RST Act, 1954) is the section enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and it is not enacted to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of section 78(2) of the RST Act 1994. That, the breach of section 78(2) would attract the levy of penalty under section 78(5) in cases where the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete Form No. 18A/18C.
Penalty rightly imposed - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal fell into error in upholding the re-assessment under Section 24 of the DVAT Act, 2004 given the nature of previous order in relation to proceedings initiated under Section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 by the Assessee? - Held that:- it is quite evident that Tribunal’s earlier observation with regard to classification based on the material before it was conclusive. Apparently, the revenue accepted it. What was remitted after the decision of the Tribunal which emanated from the determination under Section 49, was the tax on verifying statutory forms given and that too in the form of a remand by the First Appellate Authority. The materials available with this Court on the record point to the fact that the Sales Tax Officer took this opportunity of a limited remand to issue a notice under Section 24. Neither the order of the AO nor of the STO nor indeed that of the Tribunal throw any light as to on what material persuaded the STO to revisit the entire issue. Thus, it is evident that the STO virtually reviewed the decision of the Commissioner under Section 49 which, merged with the order of the Tribunal, as it were, based on no new material much less any significant material which could have permitted an authority to validly reopen assessment under Section 24.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 191 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit of ₹ 15 lakhs - dismissal of appeal for non-deposit of pre-deposit - Held that: - instead of ₹ 15 lakhs, as ordered by the learned tribunal, if the petitioner is directed to pay / deposit ₹ 10 lakhs by way of pre-deposit to be deposited within a period of six weeks from today, the Appeal is directed to be decided by the learned First Appellate Authority on merits and till then rest of the recovery is stayed, it will meet the ends of justice.
The impugned orders passed by the learned tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. Even the order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority dismissing the Appeal is also hereby quashed and set aside and the learned First Appellate Authority is hereby directed to decide and dispose of the Appeal on merits on condition that the petitioner shall deposit ₹ 10 lakhs as pre-deposit within a period of six weeks from today. It goes without saying that on such deposit of ₹ 10 lakhs as pre-deposit, the learned First Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal on merits and on such deposit rest of the demand shall stand stayed - appeal restored on deposit of ₹ 10 lakhs.
-
2016 (12) TMI 190 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Works' contract - applicability of provisions of M.P. VAT Act, 2002 on works contract - Held that: - The legal question with regard to imposition of liability only with effect from the date the agreement is entered into is a question legal in nature based on the law laid down in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT] and this aspect of the matter has to be considered. That apart, finding the order identical in nature, not to be a speaking order without disclosing any reason, similar order has been quashed by this Court in W.P. No.1767/2014 and in certain other cases.
Order impugned Annexure P/4 and all consequential action thereto stands quashed and the matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration keeping in view the observations made herein above. The petitioner shall appear before the Assessing Officer on 15th December, 2016 and on the same being done, the Assessing Officer shall proceed in accordance with law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 189 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that: - Considering the fact that the assessments are being reopened with retrospective effect from 2009-10 onwards and the petitioner's specific plea is that the manufacture of detergent powder commenced only from October 2014 and that they have sufficient documents to substantiate production, this Court is of the view that one indulgence can be shown to the petitioner to prove the above stand before the Assessing Officer. However, for such purpose, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned assessment orders. The petitioner can be permitted to file a petition under Section 84 of the said Act and produce necessary documents in support of their contentions, which shall be examined by the first respondent - the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to file petitions under Sections 84 of the said Act within a period of two weeks - appeal disposed off by way of remand.
........
|
