|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 72 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1261 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of Entry Tax - dredgers - ocean going vessels/ships - Machinery or not - Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 - Whether the dredger would partake the character or definition of a machinery as defined under Entry 52 of 1st Schedule of the ‘KTEG Act’ or otherwise? HELD THAT:- Under the Central Excise Act similar issue came up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.[1986 (9) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], whereunder the Tribunal had held that “dredgers” are to be considered as “ocean going vessels” against which order a Civil Appeal No. 5/87 [1991 (55) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] had been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay and the said appeal came to be withdrawn by order dated 7-5-1991. The statutory authorit....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1256 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Best Judgement Assessment - KVAT Act - reason for completing the assessment on best of judgment basis is that the petitioner had failed to produce the audited statement along with the returns - HELD THAT:- In view of the limited relief sought and in the light of Exhibit P2- Division Bench judgment of this Court, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P4-rectification application and to pass a reasoned order thereon - In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1-order shall be kept in abeyance. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Input tax credit - time limitation - validity of the prescription of entitlement of credit of input tax being limited within a time prescription as contained in Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1151 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalties u/s 10-A of the CST Act - purchase of High Speed Diesel - allegation that High Speed Diesel purchased by the petitioners for manufacturing process, were not being used fully in the manufacturing process, rather they were being used for other purposes also - offence under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the matter of deletion of High Speed Diesel from the CST registration of the petitioners was not sub-judice before the Appellate Authority. The only matter that was sub-judice before the Appellate Authority was the imposition of penalty upon the petitioners under Section 10-A of the CST Act. Both these issues are separate issues, and it cannot be said that the decision in the appeals filed by the ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1126 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty - storage of goods even in an undisclosed unregistered godown - Section 66 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - petitioner opted for Compounding of Offences - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it was not merely a case of the goods being found at an unregistered godown, as can be seen from the detention order the allegations also were that on the date of the raid the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents regarding compliance of the provisions of the VAT Act in respect of transport of taxable goods. Section 75 of the VAT Act makes several acts and omissions by a dealer punishable. Had the petitioner contested the notice on merits and opposed the proposal for imposing penalty or handing down punishment, all aspects could have been gone into. The petitioner instead opted for compounding of offence. Thereupon the Superintendent of Taxes passed the composition order. Petitioner now cannot challenge it on merits. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1095 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Filing of the appeals before statutory authorities and recovery of dues under various laws in the situation of outburst of Corona Virus pandemic - HELD THAT:- This present scenario of outburst of deadly corona virus is very precarious and sensitive, as the lawyers and the staff rendering assistance to this Court and the Judges are vulnerable, thus in order to prevent such rampant of spread by taking preventive measures, I deem it appropriate to issue general directions to the departments concerned like the banks, financial institutions, Income tax authorities, authorities dealing with the erstwhile KVAT, GST, recovery of tax on motor vehicles and building tax to defer the recovery proceedings or coercive measures till 06.04.2020. In order to overcome the apprehension that this general order may cause impediment or hindrance to persons who....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1094 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - opportunity to cross-examine denied - difference on account of certain inter-state transaction reflected in the return as well as the details available from the check post - presumption of certain facts - Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- Pith and substance of the facts revealed, which are not being mentioned again in order to avoid repetition would reveal that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. In case the other evidence which has been sought are not produced, the petitioner can always derive the benefits of provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act enables the authority or the court to presume existence of certain facts. The petitioner can always take the benefit of such....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1093 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal, after considering the records relating to assessment, passed Ext.P2 order dated 29.03.2010, wherein the Tribunal found that both, the contentions raised by the assessee and the arguments put forth by the Revenue, have not been considered by the authorities below - The Tribunal therefore remanded the matter solely for the purpose of giving the assessee and the Revenue an opportunity to reiterate their contentions with supporting evidences and to enable the assessing authority to pass a speaking order considering all the aspects. A reading of Ext.P9 would show that the Fast Track Assessment Team, after narrating the factual sequences, only recorded the contentions of the assessee - The manner in which the Fast....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1092 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of Interest u/s 24 (3) of TNVAT Act - incorrect availment of deferral for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - adequate reasons for levy of interest given or not - HELD THAT:- This Court, in order to give an opportunity, by treating the impugned orders as show cause notices, directs the petitioner to submit the required documents to correlate the production figure before the authority / respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1091 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of assessment order - main ground of attack by the petitioner is that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner for production of documentary evidence before the authority for passing appropriate orders - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the cause of action for issuing the pre-revision notices was on the basis of the proposal submitted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, pursuant to an inspection conducted in the place of business of the petitioner. When the petitioner submitted their objections to the pre-revision notices, the Assessing Officer has to independently adjudicate the matter and he shall not be influenced by the directions issued by the Enforcement Wing Officials. But he has not done so in this case. Further, no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner for production of necessary....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1090 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Audit of the business operations of the petitioner - Section 64 (4) of the TNVAT Act - Whether the inspection done by the second respondent, who is below the rank of Commissioner is against the provisions of law? - HELD THAT:- Section 64 (4) of the Act empowers the Commissioner to order for audit of any registered dealers and such audit is required to be done by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and such responsibility cannot be delegated to others or usurped by others - In the case on hand, the Joint Commissioner (CT) Enforcement I, who is subordinate to the Commissioner, has ordered for audit, which is against the provisions of the Act. Based on the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders, which are as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liable to be set-....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1051 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Re-assessment of the proceedings u/s 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - escaped turnover - method of fast track completion of assessment - time limitation - case of Revenue is that once Section 17(D) of the Act, 1963 do not envisage any period of limitation, the argument that the applicability of Section 19 of the Act, 1963 would not apply and impugned order noticing the escaped turn over cannot be said to be erroneous or barred by law of limitation - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the aforementioned provisions, particularly Section 19 of the Act, 1963 empowers the assessing authority may, at any time within five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to determine the best of its judgement in respect of the turn over alleged to have escaped assessment to tax - There was an amendment in Section 17 where....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1050 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - Mango Drink under the brand name “Slice” - whether fall under Entry 100D of Schedule-C of the HVAT Act or not? - taxable @ 12.5% or 5%? - HELD THAT:- An Entry similar to Entry 100-D came up for consideration before the Gauhati High Court in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam [2009 (4) TMI 853 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]. This was in the context of classifying 'Potato Chips' sold under the brand name 'Lays' and 'Uncle Chips' under the Entry 80 Part A of the Second Schedule to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Assam VAT Act) - It was held that potato chips” manufactured and sold by the petitioner-company under the brand name “Lays” and “Uncle Chips” would be covered by entry 80 of Part A of the Second Schedule to the Assam Value Added Tax....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1045 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Attachment of property - CIRP proceedings - first charge over all the properties and assets in view of Section 48 of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 - lifting of attachment sought so that they can be put to sale by the liquidator and thereupon the sale proceedings be distributed under Section 53 of the I&B Code in order of priority prescribed - Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 16.01.2020. In the meantime, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 passed in Misc. Application No. 2357 of 2019 in Company Petition (IB) No. 1514 (MB)/2017 is stayed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 997 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Levy of Luxury Tax - concealment of sales - suo-moto power of revision - Sections 36 (1) of the AGST Act and 82 (1) of the AVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the view taken by the appellate authority as regards the acceptance of the seized documents for the purpose of the assessments made and the view taken by the revisional authority and the learned Assam Board of Revenue that the petitioner assessee failed to provide the required evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the information contained in the seized documents were related to some other hotel and were procured for the purpose of making a sale projection, we are required to examine whether the view taken by the appellate authority in the order dated 29.01.2015 can be termed to be ‘erroneous order’ and ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’. From the....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 996 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund of differential tax - Input tax credit - rate of tax on LNG - situation post GST regime - It is the case of the petitioners that prior to coming into force of Goods and Service Tax regime in India, LNG was taxable under the Act 2003 at the rate of 15%, the IOCL-respondent No.3 charged tax at the rate of 15% on sales of LNG to the petitioners. The petitioners under the VAT Act were entitled to claim input tax credit of the tax so charged by the IOCL after reduction at the rate of 4% under Section 11(3) (b)(iii) of the Act 2003. HELD THAT:- The petitioners are entitled to get refund of amount of tax paid by it at the rate of 9% when the respondent No.3 has collected the tax at the rate of 15% instead of 6% as per remission order dated 05.09.2017 from the respondent-State. The petitions succeeds and are accordingly allowed - the respo....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 995 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Requirement of extra amount of Central Sales Tax - non-issuance of C-Form - Form-C was not issued by the HEC Ltd., to the petitioner Company, for the reason that the same was not supplied to HEC Ltd., by the State Government - HELD THAT:- Since the amount of ₹ 30,00,000/-(thirty lacs) has already been deposited, which is kept in the custody of this Court, we direct the Registrar General of this Court to make the payment of ₹ 28,61,893/- in favour of the petitioner Company, who in turn, shall deposit the said amount being the assessed differential amount of CST in the Government Treasury, within the period of ten days after receiving the cheque / draft. The remaining amount shall be refunded back by the Registrar General of this Court to the respondent HEC Ltd. Further it is made clear that since the petitioner Company is not a....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 994 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rejection C-Form - sale and purchase of building material i.e. Rori, Bajri, Sand etc. - C-Form rejected on the ground that single form was submitted for transaction of whole year 2008-09 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has correctly interpreted scheme of the Act and denied benefit of single C Form for the entire year. Tribunal has considered judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 702 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] which is basis of present appeal - Calcutta High Court has dealt with question of form 'F' whereas present matter relates to form 'C' and provisions relating to both forms are not identical. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 828 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Valuation - disallowance of deduction of target based discount - Vires of Section 9 (5) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - amendment made in the year 2011 in the section - validity of retrospective effect given to this provision with effect from 1.4.2010 - Jharkhand VAT Act - HELD THAT:- The submission of learned counsel for the State that in the matters of economic concerns, the Court should not generally interfere, as the laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights, and the State must be left with wide latitude in devising ways and means of fiscal or regulatory measures, does not apply in the present case, as in this case, the constitutionality of Section 9(5) of the JVAT Act and the legislative competence of State Legislature in bringing sub-Section (5) in Sectio....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 827 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Question arisen for consideration is whether the meaning can be expanded to include manufacture of otherwise goods for purposes of petitioner obtaining ‘From C’ on concessional purchase of HSD? By consent list on 26th March, 2020 under same heading.
|
