|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 76 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 and Decision etc.
-
2020 (3) TMI 995
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 at fault in making the delay in deposit of the CST, no interest shall be levied from the petitioner and ultimately, if it is found that Form-C could not be given to the HEC Ltd., by the State Government for any valid reason, the liability to pay the interest, if any, shall be of the respondent HEC Ltd., only. In case, Form-C is issued by the State Government to the respondent HEC Ltd., this respondent shall be entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 28,61,893/- from the State Government itself.
Application allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 994
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
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 Section 9 of the JVAT Act, is challenged, on the ground that the same is beyond the legislative competence of the State, as in garb of Entry-54 List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, any transaction could not be added in Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, treating the same to be sale by a deeming fiction, even though, it is not a sale, within the meaning of Sale of Goods Act, or does not fall within the Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India.
The law is well settled in this regard right from Gannon Dunkerley’s case [ 1958 (4) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT ], in the year 1959, to Bharat Sanchar Nigam’s case [ 2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT ], and Rajasthan Chemists Association’s case [ 2006 (7) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT ], in the year 2006, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the several earlier decisions and has come to the conclusion that in order to levy tax on sale, the transactions must fall within any of the clauses of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution of India, or within the meaning of the Sales of Goods Act, for the purpose of levy of sales tax. In absence thereof, the Provincial Legislature cannot, in the purported exercise of its power to levy tax on sales or purchases of goods, tax even such transactions, which are not sales or purchases, by merely enacting that they shall be deemed to be sales or purchases by the dealers.
In the present case, we find that the State Government has exceeded its legislative competence and has in that effort, treated the trade discounts / incentives as taxable transactions, treating them to be sale by a deeming fiction by bringing sub-Section (5) in Section 9 of the JVAT Act, and has thus sought to make such transactions taxable, which are in addition to the transactions described under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, which the State Government could not do, and admittedly, prior to bringing of Section 9(5) of the JVAT Act, into the Statute Book, such transactions were never being subjected to tax under the JVAT Act.
Thus, by bringing Section 9(5) in the JVAT Act into the Statute Book, the dealers have been put to a disadvantageous position, which was not there, prior to the amendment made in the year 2011, and this putting the dealers into a disadvantageous position was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature - Though it is well settled that this Court should not interfere into the fiscal legislations, and the laws, relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than the laws touching civil rights, and even if there are possibilities of abuse, that cannot in itself be a ground for invalidating the legislation, but since the State action is not within the competence of the State Legislature, this Court has no option, but to strike down the action of the State Legislature, which was beyond its legislative competence.
There are no difficulty in holding that Section 9(5) of the JVAT Act, brought into force by amendment in the JVAT Act in the year 2011, is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and the same is ultra vires Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - Accordingly, sub-Section (5) of Section 9 of the JVAT Act, as it stood with effect from 1.4.2010 to 30.06.2017 in the Statute Book, is hereby, held to be ultra vires, and accordingly, it has to be treated as if never existing in the Statute Book.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 827
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.
-
2020 (3) TMI 826
Initiation of proceedings under Section 21(2) of Trade Tax Act - assessing authority came to the conclusion that entire transaction of sale of food grains to Assam was at the instance of the revisionist, thereafter, added the said turnover to the account of the revisionist - HELD THAT:- In the instant revisions, the revisionists has reiterated the same grounds which have been raised by him before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The assessing authority considering the fact that bank draft of ₹ 6 lacs was prepared at the behest of the revisionist adding the turnover of M/s Shanker Traders to the turnover of the revisionist. The only submission challenging the said finding is that the revisionist does not have an account with the Union Bank of India. In this regard, the argument of the revisionist is not convincing and liable to be rejected, as there is no requirement that a person has to be an account holder only then he can have a bank draft prepared. It is open for anyone to deposit the requisite fee and have demand draft/bankers' cheque prepared.
There is no material or evidence to set aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Sufficient reasons have been stated and considered by the Tribunal which are available on record. The bank draft was made at the behest of the revisionist and his name finds mention in the papers including the builty. The revisionist cannot resile from the facts which have been recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no material on which the findings of Tribunal can be interfered.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 825
Imposition of penalty u/s54 (1) (14) of the Trade tax act - dispute related only to pressure horns which according to the Authority are not used in tractors but are used in other vehicles like car, three wheeler etc. - HELD THAT:- In the instant revision no material has been produced by the revenue from which it could be determined that the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to record or perverse and that pressure horns cannot be used in auto tractors and that the levy of the penalty was justified.
The Tribunal, has held that the pressure horns which were being transported were for use in the tractors, and no attempt has been made nor any material placed before us to upset the said finding recorded by the Tribunal, and therefore we find no infirmity with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 824
Benefit of Form-D - Tribunal rejected the claim of the revisionist on the ground that since the matter relates to assessment year 1998-99 and submitted Form 3D after a period of two years as prescribed under the Act and therefore the benefit of the same cannot be granted to the revisionist - HELD THAT:- It is admitted case that the revisionist did not filed form 3-D before the assessing authority and the same were furnished subsequent to the passing of the assessment order. The Tribunal has recorded the fact that Form 3-D was submitted by means of an application under Section 12B of the Act before the Tribunal for acceptance of the said Form and to grant benefit of the same to the revisionist. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that form 3-D was pertaining to assessment year 2002-03, where as the assessment pertains to the year 1998-99 and therefore Forms have been procured by the revisionist after two years of the assessment, therefore, benefit of the same cannot be granted to the revisionist.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 823
Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - import of goods from outside the State - Form 38 had certain unfilled (blank) column - existenc eof mens rea or not - contravention of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 2008 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case it is admitted fact that the respondent had duly applied for and obtained Form 38 for import of goods and the Column 6 of the said Form was left blank on account of negligence of the respondent. It is only on account of non filling of Column nos. 2 to 6, penalty has been imposed upon the respondent. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that there was no intention to evade tax and the driver of the vehicle carrying the goods was carrying all the relevant documents including the bill/challan/bilty etc. from which the details of goods being carried on the vehicle could have been verified by the officer concerned and therefore there was no occasion for the assessing officer to pass penalty order, inasmuch as there was no intention on the part of the assesee to evade tax.
The vehicle was accompanied by Form 38 and all other documents were being carried along with other documents and only due to human error column would remain unfilled. It was the duty of the Officer managing the Check Post who after discovering that some column of Form 38 found unfilled should have filled the same himself in the light of Circular dated 03.02.2009 and should have allowed the vehicle to proceed alongwith the goods. It is undisputed that the goods transported were the same which were mentioned in the various documents (bill/builty/challan etc.) carried by the driver of the vehicle.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 822
Imposition of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - contravention of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 2008 - existence of mens rea or not - HELD THAT:- Perusal sub Section 6 of Section 28A itself indicates that penalty can be imposed only after giving opportunity of being heard that the goods were being so transported in an attempt to evade payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act and therefore mens rea becomes essential ingredient.
Non-filling up of column no. 6 i.e. not mentioning of bill / cash memo / chalan / invoice number may lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of goods the declaration form may be re-used for importing goods of same quantity, weight and value to evade payment of tax but it cannot be the sole ground to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008. Satisfaction has to be recorded after giving opportunity to the dealer / person and after considering all the relevant materials / evidences on record that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. The guilty mind is necessary to be established to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008.
In the present case, the vehicle was accompanied by Form 38 and all other documents were being carried along with other documents and only due to human error column would remain unfilled. It was the duty of the Officer managing the Check Post who after discovering that some column of Form 38 found unfilled should have filled the same himself in the light of Circular dated 03.02.2009 and should have allowed the vehicle to proceed alongwith the goods. It is undisputed that the goods transported were the same which were mentioned in the various documents (bill/builty/challan etc.) carried by the driver of the vehicle.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 821
Imposition of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Added Tax Act - blank From-38 - Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act?
HELD THAT:- The aforesaid question of law is infact a question of fact and the Tribunal being last forum for recording the findings of fact has given finding of fact that there was no intention on the part of the respondent to evade tax and therefore, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent - This Court has perused the order of the Tribunal and do not find any infirmity in the same and no interference is required by this Court. The question raised by the revisionist is infact a question of fact and the same is accordingly decided in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue/revisionist.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 820
Imposition of penalty u/s 54 (1) (14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - intent to evade tax - Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that since Form 38 was filed with magic ink and, therefore, there was intention to evade tax - HELD THAT:- Concededly, at the time of interception of goods, other documents, namely invoices and bilty were also found. These documents were in order. Even Form 38 was found to be duly filled up evidencing the transaction under which the goods were being imported. The assessee had duly produced his books of accounts in which the transaction in question is duly accounted for. In such circumstances, merely on assumption that Form 38 could be re-used, the Assessing Officer was not justified in imposting penalty.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 819
Best Judgement assessment - enhancement of taxable turnover - rejection of books of accounts - Section 8-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under Section 7(1)(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The Commercial Tax Tribunal, while passing the impugned order has recorded a fact that even previously in the year 1995-96, the books of accounts were rejected and the best judgment assessment was carried out. The findings of the Special Investigation team for the assessment year 1996-97 with regard to the fact that no books of account were found and no manufacturing activity was carried out no explanation for the same was given by the revisionist either before the authorities below of before this Court. The Tribunal has looked into all the aspects of the matter and considered the ground raised by the revisionist and has rightly upheld the rejection of the books of account of the revisionist and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority.
The tribunal has also considered all the fact that the revisionist was a registered dealer with U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board and was supplying goods to Khadi Gramodyog. The findings recorded that the large amount of iron procured which was used in manufacturing was sham and such large quantity of iron could not have been procured which also does not tally with the output of the revisionist and after considering the entire proceedings the Tribunal has rightly upheld the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Authority and the same requires no interference.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 818
Validity of ex-parte assessment order - intra-state sales - applicability of provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the goods were transported from Allahabad to Calcutta. It is also admitted that for transportation of the said goods Form-F was issued by the dealer in Calcutta, the assessing authority on the basis of the above mentioned facts passed the assessment order in exercise of power under Section 21 of the Act, 1948 was done only on account of the subsequent developments and report submitted by the S.I.B. The said report of S.I.B clearly indicated that the revisionists had in fact sold the goods in question in Calcutta himself and that the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, 1956 were not applicable in this case.
The authorities were of the view that there was clear evasion of tax and second appellate order was passed. The only defect with the assessment order as has been mentioned by the counsel for the revisionist is that at best the said transaction would be inter state sale rather than intra state sale. He submits that the entire proceedings are based on a solitary material/evidence/ the report of S.I.B. If the report of S.I.B. is to be believed than the transaction was an inter state sale, the goods emanating from Allahabad were to be sold in Calcutta - It is undisputed that the report of S.I.B. clearly indicates that the goods were sold in Calcutta and the provisions of the Act, 1956 would be applicable rather than provisions of the Act, 1948.
The matter is remanded to the tribunal to hear the revisionist only for the purpose of remanding the same to the appropriate assessing authority to assess the tax imposed on the revisionist on the basis of the admitted claim of the transaction - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (3) TMI 817
Imposition of penalty u/s 4-B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - diesel purchased against Form III-B - existence of mens-rea on the part of the applicant or not - admittedly diesel has been used in generator set for generation of electricity used for plant and machinery, used for manufacture of Khandsari namely notified goods - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the revisionist factory had no power connection and therefore had installed generator set for production of power which in turn was used to run the plant and machinery for manufacture of sugar. It has also been urged that the remaining amount of Diesel was used for maintenance and installation of machinery, which is permissible under the law.
Looking into the facts and circumstances that the Revenue in exercise of power under Section 4-B of the Act, 1948 has granted recognition certificate to the revisionist for procuring Diesel Oil to be used for production of sugar and taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S SHREE BHAWANI PAPER MILLS LTD., M/S RAMA SHYAMA PAPERS LTD., M/S GOELS COIR FOAM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S CAMPHOR AND ALLIED PRODUCTS, M/S N.P. AGRO (INDIA) INDUSTRIES LTD., M/S BHOLENATH INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [2015 (11) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the revisionist was entitled for the benefit under the Act, 1948.
Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that there was no material before the Tribunal to conclude that the excess Diesel has been diverted for private gain or that the excess quantity of Diesel Oil was utilised for "other purposes" which was different from the purpose of manufacturing sugar. Before coming to such a finding, there should have been sufficient material before the Tribunal to reach such a conclusion. In absence of any such material, such a finding cannot be recorded by the Tribunal.
The matter is required to be remanded to the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, to pass fresh orders - revision allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (3) TMI 816
Levy of tax - Job-work - trading and sales in absence of Form-F - Section 6 A of the Central Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The question regarding levy of sales act on the goods which are not accompanied by Form- F are on which the dealer cannot produce Form- F is no longer res-integra and has considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMBICA STEELS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF UP. AND OTHERS [2009 (3) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that even in cases where the dealer cannot produce Form- F he can still demonstrate before the authorities that the said transaction is not a sale and for which the Court has allowed the dealer to produce relevant document and material and other evidences to prove that the said transaction was not a sale on which the Central Sales Tax cannot be levied.
The Supreme Court has given liberty to the dealer to appear and submit before the assessing authority the material from which it can be determined as to the nature of the transaction and the assessing authority after considering the entire material would come to a finding as to whether provisions of Central Sales Tax would be applicable under said transaction or not.
It is directed that the revisionist will appear and submit before the assessing authority alongwith a certified copy of this judgement in six weeks to complete the assessing proceedings with regard to the said transaction only, on its own merits, after examining the record of transactions between the parties, keeping in mind that the assessee has not in possession of Form- F - Revision disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 734
Imposition of penalty u/s 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - imposition of additional tax on the sales made by the Assessee, which were not supported by declaration in 'C' Forms - Best Judgment Assessment - HELD THAT:- The parameters of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act are not satisfied in the present case.
Section 12(3)(b) provides for imposition of penalty in case of submission of incorrect or incomplete return by the Assessee. Both the grounds given above for imposition of additional tax on the Assessee did not result in Best Judgment Assessment against the Assessee and it cannot amount to filing of incorrect or incomplete return by the Assessee. On debatable issues, even if the addition in taxable turnover is made by the Assessing Officer, it does not amount to Best Judgment Assessment, which can be passed, only if the regular books of accounts and the return filed by the Assessee are rejected for given reasons. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the insertion of the Explanation in Section 12(3) of the Act at a later date with effect from 01.04.1996 to uphold such penalty in the year 1993-94.
Thus, the Explanation to Section 12(3) does not get attracted to the facts of the present case at all.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 733
Validity of assessment order - cancellation of registration of dealer - Gujarat VAT Act - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessment order came to be passed pursuant to the returns, said to have been filed by the writ-applicant. However, in fact, no such returns were filed by the writapplicant and it was the Tax Consultant who created the bogus record - There is no hesitation in quashing the assessment order as well as the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 31st July, 2018.
The matter is remitted to the authority concerned for fresh hearing on the subject - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (3) TMI 732
Maintainability of appeal - Section 58 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and even the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, if at all can be established by the Assessee, the Assessee can very well file an appeal under Section 58 of the Act before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal besides raising the grounds on the merits of the case. Therefore, it does not entitle the Assessee / Appellant to resort to writ jurisdiction invariably in all circumstances for the alleged breach of principles of natural justice.
In the present case the appellant could avail the effective alternative remedy - the Writ Appeal is disposed of by relegating the matter back to the first appellate authority viz., the The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai (East), Chennai.
-
2020 (3) TMI 731
Principles of Natural Justice - validity of assessment order - HELD THAT:- On account of the fact that the petitioner did not place certain facts before this Court, this Court, while considering the writ appeals held that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly confirmed the order passed in the writ petitions. However, after elaborately hearing the learned counsel today, we find that certain important factual details were not placed before us when the writ appeals were heard. Though the petitioner is to be blamed for such an act, nevertheless the Court has to take into consideration the facts, which are undisputed and then take a decision and merely because there was a default committed by the petitioner, the Court cannot refuse to exercise the review jurisdiction especially when those undisputed facts will turn the dimension of the case.
Review application allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 699
Vires of Notification dated 15th February, 2010 - sub-section (1A) of section 3 of the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 - in the impugned notification, State Government while amending the schedule added Entry 9 pertaining to “stainless steel plates, flats, sheets and coils” and specified the maximum rate of tax as four percent.
It is the case of the petitioners that while the State Government reduced the applicable rate of tax under the VAT Act on stainless steel flats and sheets to 1% it did not correspondingly reduce the rate of entry tax applicable to the same goods and thus, while the rate of tax under the VAT Act for stainless steel flats and sheets is reduced to 1%, the rate of entry tax on the same goods continues to be four percent.
HELD THAT:- The validity of the Entry Tax Act was challenged before this court in the case of EAGLE CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [2006 (10) TMI 395 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], on which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioners. In the said case, this court considered as to whether by enacting the Entry Tax Act, is there any discriminatory treatment and/or such levy is discriminatory? In the said context, this court while upholding the validity of the Entry Tax Act held that considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons in juxtaposition with the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Entry Tax Act and consequent levy of the entry tax on the specified goods are violative of Article 304 of the Constitution of India. This court further held that entry tax is not discriminatory between the goods so imported and goods so manufactured, produced in a local areas and the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Entry Tax Act and the levy of entry tax thereof fails - While upholding the validity of the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, it has been held by this court that when there is a reduction in the effective rate of sales tax under the erstwhile Gujarat Sales Tax Act, there will automatically be a corresponding reduction in the maximum rate of entry tax prescribed in the schedule so that the goods brought from out side the State are not discriminated against the goods manufactured within the State, from the point of view of ultimate burden of tax.
Thus, in absence of any special circumstances pointed out by the State Government either in its affidavit or during the course of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it can be safely concluded that neither there exist any circumstances for redressal of an inequitable situation nor was there any sufficient and reasonable cause which weighed with the State Government for removing the discrimination between the goods entering into the local areas from any place outside the State.
Clearly, as is discernible from the aforesaid well established principles, the Entry Tax Act is aimed at achieving a level playing field so as to obviate any chance of discrimination. Further, considering the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, in juxtaposition with the provisions of the VAT Act further read with the provisions of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India, it is abundantly clear that if rates of a specified goods are reduced by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the VAT Act, there has to be a corresponding reduction of the rates of entry tax by the State Government by issuing a notification under the Entry Tax Act; proportionately reducing the rate of tax. Not doing so and continuing with the notification specifying the rate of entry tax on the higher side as compared to the rates specified by the State Government in the notification under the VAT Act, would be in the teeth of the aforesaid well established principles enunciated by this court in the aforesaid judgment.
The continuation of the notification dated 15th February, 2010 prescribing the rate of tax as 4%, after the issuance of the notification dated 3rd October, 2012 is discriminatory and is directly hit by the provisions of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India and thus, cannot be sustained. Thus, the notification dated 15th February, 2010 insofar as it prescribes the rate of tax as 4% is illegal and not in sync with the provisions of the Entry Tax Act so also the VAT Act and hence, it is impermissible to the State Government to charge tax in excess of the rate of tax prescribed under the notification dated 3rd October, 2012.
Since the notification dated 15th February, 2010, has been held to be illegal and bad in law insofar as it prescribes a higher rate of entry tax vis-á-vis the rate of tax provided in the notification dated 3rd October, 2012 issued under the provisions of the VAT Act, the consequential notices dated 23rd January, 2017 (Annexure 'B' collectively) also cannot be sustained.
The impugned notification dated 15th February, 2010 (Annexure A) to the extent it prescribes a higher rate of entry tax vis-à-vis the rate of tax provided in the notification dated 3rd October, 2012 issued under the provisions of the VAT Act is hereby held to be illegal and bad in law - petition allowed.
|
