Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 82 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.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1842 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - assessment was made based on the Web Report - assessment made without furnishing the details of such report and without conducting any enquiry at all levels - HELD THAT:- The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to redo the assessment after following the procedures/ directions issued by this Court in the above said batch of cases - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1695 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - Potato Chips - processed vegetables - Whether the Tax Board is justified in holding that ‘Potato Chips’ are not classifiable as ‘Processed Vegetable’ under entry 107 of Schedule IV, just because of the fact that branded namkeen (including dried potato chips), are kept outside the purview of entry 131 of the same Schedule, a general entry dealing with sweetmeats and unbranded namkeen? Held that:- It cannot be disputed that Potato is a vegetable, and after going through the process of slicing, frying and spicing, “Potato Chips” does not cease to be a vegetable. It is irrelevant as to whether it becomes a snack item or not, but then it does not take a snack item outside the entry of 'Processed Vegetables'. The characteristics of Potato does not change and merely because by processing Potato, “Potato Chips” are produ....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1691 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Converting, absorbing and regularising the petitioner’s services in an equivalent category post with all consequential benefits - The stand taken by the authorities that the petitioner could not be considered for such absorption and regularisation by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 was dealt with on merits and rejected by the Tribunal - Held that:- The manner in which the Commercial Tax Authorities and more particularly, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Andhra Pradesh, dealt with the petitioner’s case pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.12567 of 2009 leaves this Court with no option but to set aside the proceedings dated 30.10.2012 of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Andhra Pradesh, and remit the matter to him for consideration of the whole issue afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1690 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Doctrine of frustration - presence of disturbing element in the contract, preventing performance of the Contract - Payment of Compounding Tax - Whether the petitioner, carrying on a quarry and crusher unit, be permitted to withdraw from the compounding applied for in the year 2016-17, for reason of failure to obtain licenses from the local authority, to carry on the quarry and crusher operations? Held that:- It was stated that the contract was not an ordinary contract for sale and purchase. It was an integral part of a development scheme and there was no time limit within which the roads and drains were to be made. The first requisition order was passed nearly 15 months after the contract and the work was not commenced even within that time. Even when the contract was entered into, the war had already commenced and requisition orders for ....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1653 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Whether the abovementioned fuels like natural gas, furnace oil, diesel oil and naphtha would come within the meaning of the expression "raw materials" "processing materials" or "consumable stores"? Held that: - the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Ami Pigment Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. State of Gujarat [2010 (2) TMI 1068 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], where it was held that to the extent of use of electricity for the purposes other than manufacturing activities or not connected therewith would not be considered as raw materials, processing materials or consumable stores - petition dismissed.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1652 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sealing of Business Premises - non-production of concerned books of account for verification - Section 52(1)(f) of the KVAT Act - Held that: - Section 52(1)(f) clearly reveals that a specific power to seal is being granted to the officer authorised by the Commissioner. The said power can be exercised only when "the owner or the person-in-charge of the business or any other person-incharge of the business or any other person-in-occupation either leaves the premises or is not available or fails or refuses to open any box or receptacle, godown or building or any part of the godown or building when called upon to do so" - The said power cannot be extended ad infinitum to be exercised in the circumstances not prescribed by law. Admittedly, in the present case, at the time of inspection, the petitioner was not only present, but also had coopera....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1651 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemption from payment of Sales Tax / Commercial Tax as also Central Sales Tax - effect of subsequent notification - petitioner's contention is that the State of Madhya Pradesh with an aim and object to encourage the generation and consumption of electricity generated through non-conventional power generation system, issued a notification dated 28/02/1995 and granted exemption from payment of Sales Tax / Commercial Tax as also Central Sales Tax subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the notification - The petitioner's contention is that subsequent notification cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect and amount which has been accrued upon power generation system and purchasers like the Company, cannot be extinguished on account of subsequent notification issued by the State Government. Held that:....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1650 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Prior permission as required under Section 29(7) of Act, 2008 - Circular issued by Commissioner dated 25.05.2016 - power of Commissioner to issue such Circular - Held that: - Assessing Authority has not relied on any Circular and in any case the validity of Circular is not under challenge before this Court. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to make any comment thereon - So far as question, whether there is any escape of assessment of tax or that supply in question was for domestic purpose or not, has to be examined by Taxing authority concerned and the petitioner has statuary remedy including hierarchy of appeal etc., and, therefore, those aspects need not be examined in this writ petition - petition dismissed.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1649 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - it was alleged that the goods transported by the petitioner was not accompanied by the documents prescribed in Sub-Section 5 of Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 and that the respondent had reason to believe that there was sale of the goods liable to tax - Held that: - considering the fact that the very impugned proceedings is only the detention notice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must approach the respondent and give the explanation as discussed - this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent and file their explanation within a period of seven days.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1648 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Benefit of deferment of tax - H.P. VAT Act, 2005 - whether the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the facts of the instant case? Held that: - Admittedly, the notification dated 23.7.1999, remained in force fully for a period of 5 years, whereby the deferred payment of sales tax was available to the units relating to Mini Steel Plants induction / Arc / Submerged furnaces and / or rolling mills, only available up till 23.07.2004. After 23.7.2004, the notification ceased to exist and it is only vide notification dated 30.3.2005, that the scheme for making deferred payment of tax was extended to the ‘A’ & ‘B’ category areas, but as the unit of the petitioner was manufacturing SS/MS Ingot, billets and TOR SARIA, which admittedly fall in the negative list, the petitioner obviously was not entitled to the deferred payment of tax. ....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1646 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of State authorities to proceed with reassessment exercise - burden of proof - Held that: - this Court finds that for reassessment proceedings, once the basis to discard the figures disclosed by the assessee had not been accepted by the department itself, the authorities were not justified in relying upon disclosure made by M/s Bhawani Brick Field, Daurala, after its stand was specifically disbelieved by the department itself - it is settled that in reassessment proceedings, the onus to establish that the disclosure was incorrect, was upon the department, and it could not have been shifted upon the assessee. The onus was otherwise not discharged by the department. The order passed by the Tribunal in reassessment proceeding is not liable to be sustained - revision allowed in favor of assessee.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Inter-state sales - detention of goods on the ground that the petitioner is an un-registered dealer in Tamil Nadu - Held that: - there appears to be a non-application of mind, on the part of the respondent in passing the impugned order - Absolutely there is no consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner dated 25.03.2017, apart from the fact that the order itself was passed without waiting till 27.03.2017, for the petitioner to react on the notice dated 27.03.2017, even assuming that the reply given by the petitioner dated 25.03.2017 has not reached the respondent before passing the impugned order - matter allowed by way of remand.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1556 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - assessment - Held that: - this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not the one where exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted given that the petitioner has not exhausted its appellate remedies. At the same time, peculiar circumstances are such that the filing of an appeal would expose the petitioner to an immediate liability of fulfilling the pre-deposit condition. Consequently, in the event, the petitioner prefers appeal/objections to the Special Commissioner under Section 74 of the DVAT Act, within three weeks from today, the same shall be deemed to have been in compliance with the limitation period and shall be heard and dealt with on the merits - petition allowed.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Input tax Credit - duty paying documents - Works contract - whether the awarder of the contract, namely, Karnataka Water Supply Board is ‘Government’, and therefore, the Running Bills prepared by the Board can be construed as “Tax Invoices” within the meaning of Rule 27(2) Proviso of Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005? Held that: - The purpose of the Proviso to Rule 27(2) of the KVAT Rules giving the status of “Tax Invoices or Bill of Sale” even to the “Running Account Bills” to the awarders of the work contract to be executed by contractors by the Government or its departments is obviously to allow such contractors to take input tax credit on the basis of such tax invoices. Since running bills are prepared during the currency of the execution of contract itself since the final bill is not made at that point of time. There is no reason....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1490 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - on the aspect of applicability of Section-47 of the KVAT Act and its consequential effect, the matter has been remanded by the Tribunal to the Jurisdictional Local VAT Officer - Held that: - since the matter is at large to be examined by the Jurisdictional Local Vat Officer in accordance with law, the petition may be permitted to be withdrawn - all the rights and contentions of both parties including the question of applicability of Section-47 of KVAT Act shall remain open to be considered by the Jurisdictional Local VAT Officer - petition quashed.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1489 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - natural justice - no Notice of hearing has ever been given and ex-parte order has been passed - Held that: - Notice has been served upon the guarantors of the petitioners. Such type of service of Notice is no Notice in the eye of law, especially when tax liability is to be imposed upon the petitioners. The minimum requirement is that Notice of hearing should be served upon the Assessee before passing such order against the assessee - This minimum requirement has not been fulfilled in this case as a result of which work load of this court has unnecessarily been increased and therefore, such type of matters should be remanded - appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1488 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - denial on the ground that the invoices could not be produced - the tax invoices were lost. The appellant failed before the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal as he could not get duplicate copy of tax invoices and statutory VAT-C-4 by that time. Subsequently the appellant obtained duplicate copy from the Selling Dealer and also VAT-C-4 in original - Held that: - the appellant has produced the duplicate tax invoices and the statutory form VAT-C-4, along with the present appeal, in our view the appeal deserves to be accepted. The impugned orders passed by the Authorities are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority for fresh determination of tax liability of the appellant after the appellant furnishes duplicate tax invoices and original statutory form VAT-C-4 - benefit of input tax credit allowed - appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1487 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Compounding of offences - KVAT Act - For compounding an offence, which of the compounding fees should be paid by the assessee: the one prevailing when the evasion took place or the one prevailing at the time of actual compounding? Held that: - If it is a continuing offence, the penalty applicable at the terminus is the penalty the erring assessee shall be mulcted with - If it is non-recurring (for want of a better expression), the liability stipulated when the offence has been committed alone shall apply. We shall, in a while, examine whether either of these contingencies applies to the case on hand. Compounding is in relation to an offence; what was imposed, however, is fee. No quarrel can we have with the proposition that imposing fee is a taxing aspect of the State under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Equally indisputable is....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1486 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Interest on delayed payment - Revenue's case is that once it is established that the amount of tax as was due in terms of the provisions of the Act and the notification issued thereunder had not been paid along with the returns, there is nothing wrong in raising the demand of interest for its delayed payment - Held that: - an assessee cannot foresee the additional demand of tax on account of reassessment or in revision and the interest would become payable only from the date, the demand is raised and not from the date of filing of return - demand of interest set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
- 2017 (3) TMI 1427 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit - invocation of revisional power u/s 74A of the DVAT Act, 2004 - petitioner's case is that that such powers could not have been invoked in the peculiar circumstances of the case (with respect to past transactions) which had resulted in finalised assessments prior to enactment of the Act in force - Held that: - the petitioners are hereby allowed the relief in the sense that they are at liberty to deposit 25% of the demanded amount as a condition for pre-deposit - petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner.