|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 96 Records
-
2016 (1) TMI 1432 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - refund of the amounts payable to the petitioner have not yet been passed by the respondent - HELD THAT:- As the applications filed by the petitioner for refund in terms of the orders referred to in Exhibit A, B, E & F are still pending for consideration by the respondent no.4, we find it appropriate to direct the respondent no.4 to take a decision on such refund applications on the assessment orders referred to at Exhibit A, B, E & F within 3 months from today in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1420 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Adjustment of TDS - Adjustment of tax deducted of the amount so deducted from the main contractor towards tax arrears due by the petitioner - rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the Act for such adjustment of tax - HELD THAT:- The amounts paid to the sub contractor by the principal contractor which had already suffered tax in the hands of the principal contractors and that therefore the turn over once again could not be subjected to tax in the hands of the sub contractor and if it is done, it would be a case of double taxation. On that reasoning those petitions having been disposed of - The same principle will apply to the present case on hand.
The respondents are directed to adjust the tax already collected from the principal contractor in respect of the liability sought to be fastened on the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1419 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Adjustment of tax already deposited by principal contractor - whether the respondents are justified in not adjusting the tax already deducted by the Principal Contractor, and once again seeking to tax the petitioners in respect of the same amount which has been deducted by the principal contractor? - HELD THAT:- The amounts paid to the sub contractor by the principal contractor had already suffered tax in the hands of the principal contractors and that therefore the turn over once again could not be subjected to tax in the hands of the subcontractor and if it is done, it would be a case of double taxation.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of holding that the petitioners could not be subjected to tax on the amounts which were already deducted by the principal contractor and of which tax had been collected.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1395 - SUPREME COURT
Filing of Counter affidavits - Transfer of right to use the tug or not - Held that:- In view of the importance of the issues that arise for consideration and the fact that any pronouncement from this Court would have far reaching implications not only for Centre-State relationship but the federal character and separation of legislative powers of the Union and the States, it is deemed proper to grant one final opportunity to the defaulting States to file their counter affidavits but only on payment of costs of ₹ 50,000/- by each State in default - List after the counter affidavits have been filed on 6th April, 2016.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision of order - it is the grievance of the petitioner that since they could not obtain form C and form I inspite of several reminders, they were unable to file it before the respondent. Thereafter, on getting the form C and form I, the petitioner, by invoking section 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, filed the same - Held that: - The facts which are not disputed in the cases on hand show that the petitioner is regularly filing their monthly returns and complying with the statutory requirements. The respondent has also accepted the turnover reported by the petitioner as correct and determined the same. However, for want of form C and form I, the respondent adopted higher rate of tax at 14.5 per cent, which in my view, cannot be sustained in view of a circular dated February 1, 2000 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai.
The writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated December 16, 2015 and January 21, 2016 and directing the respondent to accept form I filed by the petitioner on January 19, 2016 for the sales made to "SEZ" for the assessment year 2011-2012 and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1264 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of goods to driver - detention of goods in transit - the driver of the vehicle deposited a sum of Rs. One lac as security based on which, 110 bags were released in favor of the driver on 22nd December 2011 - it is the petitioner's case that when the petitioner appeared in person the goods could not have been released to the driver and that the goods if, any, should have been released only to the petitioner - Held that: - we find it strange that the petitioner does not dispute the deposit of Rs. One lac made by the driver on 22nd December, 2011 and only dispute the receiving of the goods by the driver - Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT contemplates that the officer seizing the goods shall serve the notice on the dealer or the person incharge with regard to the seizure of the goods. In the instant case, the person incharge of the goods at the relevant moment of time was the driver of the vehicle who was transporting the goods. The SCN and thereafter the seizure order were issued in the name of the driver - When the goods are detained it is not humanly possible to serve the notice to the owner of the goods who is sitting some where else in some other part of the country outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The goods detained are required to be handled and disposed off at the earliest. In such circumstance, unless otherwise instructed by the owner, the person incharge of the goods would be the driver. We find that the petitioner appeared before the authorities immediately thereafter, but did not object to the fact that notice or custody of the goods should not be given to the driver - also, from the provision of Section 48 that there is no embargo of releasing the goods in part - release of goods is not under any error - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner-owner of goods.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1230 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Classification of manufactured products - Shower to Shower - Listerine Mouthwash - Savlon - whether the products could be classified as drugs or not?
Held that: - Insofar as “Shower to Shower” and “Listerine Mouth Wash” are concerned, these two products can be used by any person irrespective of prescribing by a medical doctor for one to feel fresh and to avoid/remove body odour or to remove bad smell in body/mouth, and in my view these are products which are freely available in the market and merely because there may be some percentage of acid or ethanol or similar ingredients, it cannot be said that they can be said to be like a medicine or even can be said to be a medicine or a drug - even if the licensing authorities may grant permission to the producers / manufacturers as drug but they cannot be treated as a drug or medicine when specific entries under the Sales Tax laws are required to be looked into and considered - petition dismissed and claim of petitioner rejected in relation to these two products.
Savlon - Held that: - The Apex court in the case of IPCA Health Products & Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2014 (6) TMI 861 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was considering a case of Hexiperp, Hexiscrub (Surgiscrub) and Hexiaque, which also contain Chloral Hex dine Gluconate Solution BP, which is also available in “Savlon” and held it to be a medicine.
Imposition of penalty - Held that: - The Apex court as well as this court have in identical cases held that when there is an issue of classification and issue being debatable, the penalty is not leviable/imposable/sustainable - The judgment in the case of Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another [2009 (4) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] so also judgment of this court in the case of CTO v. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 1504 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] are sufficient to refer for non imposition of penalty.
Petition dismissed - decided partly in favor of assessee and partly in favor of revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1229 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - transport of two consignments of DVD players from Moolakadai to Mount Road on 12.12.2015 in a mini lorry - detained on the ground that the goods transported without valid documents - Held that: - this Court is inclined to order release of the detained goods in question on payment of tax to the tune of ₹ 1,24,000/- by the petitioner - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1226 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of TIN registration - single line order of cancellation passed, without assigning any reason - Held that: - Though the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that a show-cause notice was sent to the petitioner and the same was returned for want of sufficient address, the fact remains that those facts are not reflected in the impugned order and thus, it is evident that before passing such order, the petitioner was not at all heard. Therefore, this Court is fully satisfied that the impugned order of cancellation of registration passed is in violation of principles of natural justice, that too, without assigning any reason cannot be sustained - petition allowed - matter on remand.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1224 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Payment of tax without any further delay - the impugned proceedings is issued only on the reason that the stay granted by the appellate authority pending appeal challenging the assessment proceedings, has expired on 15.01.2016, without considering the fact that the appellate authority reserved the appeal for orders on 13.01.2016 and that the petitioner has also filed application seeking extension of stay on 11.01.2016 and the said application is still pending - Held that: - the appellate authority will pass final orders in the appeal itself within a period of two weeks and in the meantime, the respondents will not give effect to the impugned notice - this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner till the appeal is disposed of by the second respondent or till an order is passed in the petition seeking extension of stay, filed before him - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1223 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery of sales tax - Proceedings against the property purchased by the appellants - there was a sales tax arrears against the property of which the appellants were not aware of - Held that: - it is open for the revenue authorities to take steps to recover the amount from the properties sold by the defaulter at Muvattupuzha, we do not think that the revenue authorities will be justified in proceeding against the property of the appellants in this case. The appellants have a case that they are the subsequent purchasers of the property and that they were not aware of the sales tax arrears. They also have a case that there is no charge created on the properties purchased by them. It is apparent from the materials on record that though it will be proper on the part of the revenue authorities to proceed against the properties in the hands of the defaulter, his wife and children, in the absence of any statutory provision which creates a charge on such properties or creates a legal impediment to treat such transfer void, it may not be possible for the revenue authorities to proceed against the properties in the hands of the appellants.
Even according to the appellants, they purchased the properties as per sale deed dated 27/04/2007, 28/04/2007 and 17/05/2007. At the time when the properties were purchased, no proceedings were initiated against the properties. Proceedings were taken only when Ext.P10 had been issued on 11/08/2008. As far as the appellants are concerned, we do not think that the revenue authorities are entitled to invoke Section 44 of the Act - Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision which creates a charge on the property or declares the transfer as void and not binding on the Government, and since there was no attachment on the properties prior to the date on which the appellants had purchased the property, the said property cannot be proceeded by invoking the provisions of the Act.
The property of the appellants were proceeded only on account of a mistake of fact, we do not think that it amounts to wilful contempt. Accordingly we do not find it necessary to proceed with the contempt case - the title of petitioners held good - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1222 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Natural justice - Best judgement assessment - imposition of penalty u/s 37(2) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act read with Section 8 of the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001 - import of chemical - taxable @ 2% under the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 as per entry No. 51 of the Schedule - Held that: - though the written submission of the petitioner dated 21.06.2015, that was submitted pursuant to the Notice of the Assessing Officer dated 20.11.2014 & 11.06.2015, was available before him, but the Assessing Officer did not consider the same while passing the impugned order of 'best judgment assessment' dated 28.08.2015, considering it to be incomplete or incorrect.
The said impugned order also does not reflect that the departmental authority adduced proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof with regard to such finding.
The impugned assessment order dated 28.08.2015 is vitiated in law and accordingly the same is set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1219 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - demand of security for release - Form Form XXI - Held that: - Form XXI was produced. There is no allegation that form-XXI was either bogus or not genuine nor there is any allegation against the assessee that the goods were not be found accounted in his books. On the contrary, the assessee had placed a valid document to show that the goods had duly accounted for. In the absence of any finding being recorded by the Tribunal that any goods have escaped assessment towards taxes, the demand for security is not justified - goods are directed to be released - revision allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1218 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - natural justice - Held that: - the assessment order quashed on the ground that the respondent did not consider the documents presented by the petitioner - The respondents without issuing any notice to the petitioner has enhanced substantially the gross turnover. The amount enhanced in the gross turnover is at ₹ 1,05,36,86,782/. For such huge enhancement, SCN must have been given.
It ought to have been kept in mind by the respondents authorities that typographical error of assessee cannot be encashed by the State respondents. At least, a notice ought to have been issued by the respondents giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the error committed by the assessee, especially, when the assessee is wholly owned by the Central Government as a Central Government Undertaking/Public Sector Undertaking - the impugned order of assessment is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Petition allowed - assessment to be redone - matter on remand.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1217 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Clinker - Levy of entry tax - Section 4-A provides for entry tax at enhanced rates on certain goods consumed or used in such local area for manufacture of other goods - higher rate of entry tax on limestone when it is clinkerised in the local area but is stock transferred to their units outside the State to the extent it is used for manufacture of cement - Held that: - Section 3 provides for the incidence of taxation on the entry of goods specified in Schedule II into a local area for consumption, use or sale. Limestone is to be found as an entry in Schedule II. Section 4-A provides for entry tax at enhanced rates in a specified local area on goods which are used, consumed or sold in such local area for manufacture of other goods.
The Petitioners were required to pay entry tax at the higher rate subject to the result of the writ petition. It is not the case of the Respondents that Clinker was sold by the Petitioners to third parties but has been stock transferred to their own cement units. The Petitioners are therefore held entitled to restitution. The 15% additional entry tax is directed to be refunded to the Petitioners - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1216 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Time limitation - SCN challenged on the basis of section 24 where it is stated that the reassessment can be done within four years from date of passing of final assessment order - Held that: - Section 24(1)(a) of the DST Act indicates that an assessment made under Section 23 can be reopened within a period of six years from the date of the final order of assessment in a case where the dealer has concealed, omitted or failed to disclose fully the particulars of his turnover.
A part of the turnover of the Assessee had escaped assessment to tax and, accordingly, notice in form ST-15 was issued to the Assessee. It cannot be disputed that the Assessee was required to disclose in its return the value of purchases made against statutory forms which had not been utilized for the specified purposes. However the Assessee had undisputedly failed to do so - the contention that the assessment order has been passed beyond the period of limitation is without any merit.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1157 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of arrears of Sales Tax - Sick industrial unit - Held that: - the decision in Raheja Universal did not take a different view but actually affixes the seal of approval, on the view taken in Corromandal Pharmaceuticals [1997 (3) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] wherein it was held that scheme for rehabilitation or restructuring of a sick industrial company undertaken by a specialized body like the BIFR/AAIFR should, as far as legally permissible, remain obstruction free and the events should take place as pre-ordained, during consideration and successful implementation of the formulated scheme - jurisdiction is vested in BIFR/AAIFR to issue directives, declarations and prohibitory orders within the rationalized scope and limitations prescribed under Section 22(1), 22(3) and 22A of the Act of 1985 - Appeal is dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase return - Detention of goods - Since the 2nd respondent, the assessing authority is empowered to proceed in the manner known to law, if he finds that the petitioner has committed any violation of the rules and regulations and since the 1st respondent is not empowered to impose and collect the compounding fee, the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside - Petition is disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1134 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability - alternative remedy of appeal - whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India maintainable when the alternative remedy of appeal available? - Held that: - no reason found to exercise discretion to entertain the writ petition. Option open to petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 31(1) of the Act. Copy of the original assessment order to be returned to the petitioner to enable him to file appeal - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (1) TMI 1116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of dues - power of enforcement wing officials to collect cheques - The Commissioner has also issued circulars following the directions of this Court. It appears that the orders as well as administrative instructions have only fallen on deaf ears and as a result, many writ petitions are being filed on similar grounds. - Non-submission or delayed submission of 'C-Forms' - Reversal of input tax credit
Held that:- The power to levy and demand tax is conferred by the statute and not by consent of the assesse. Any tax levied or demanded must be with the authority of law, otherwise, such a levy would be against the constitutional mandate in Article 265 of the Constitution. In the present cases, the petitioner has submitted their objections claiming that there is no stock difference and that the cheque was collected by force. Therefore, the assessing officer is duty bound to look into the books of accounts, documents and verify the claim of the assesse before passing orders.
This Court has time and again held that the enforcement wing officials have no authority to collect cheques. Their duty under Section 65 of the TNVAT Act is limited to inspection and drawing of a report. As per Section 65 (3), the enforcement wing officials, even when they discover that there is an attempt to evade tax, they can only seize the records for the purpose of enquiry. However, the demand can be made only after assessment and that has to be in accordance with law by the assessing authority.
Therefore, It is very clear that the enforcement wing officials cannot usurp the powers of the assessing officers and collect cheques. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the cheque amount.
|
