|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 61 Records
-
2020 (12) TMI 1123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - Validity of revision of assessment orders - allegation of petitioner is that without verifying the petitioner's books of accounts, completed assessments were revised - assessment years from 2006-07 to 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- In all the replies sent by the petitioner to the proposal made by the respondent to revise the completed assessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, 2006, they have undertaken to cooperate with the respondent by furnishing all the records/books of accounts, called for by the respondent. In all the replies sent by the petitioner to the respondent, they have also referred to the decision of this Court in M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. However, as seen from the impugned assessment orders, the respondent has not adhered to the settled procedure laid down by this Court, while passing the impugned assessment orders under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
The counter affidavit filed by the respondent has not answered the grounds raised by the petitioner that the impugned assessment orders have been passed in a mechanical fashion without verification of the petitioner's books of accounts, but, just relying upon the web report maintained by the respondent. While that be so, it is clear that the procedure contemplated as per the decision in JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED has not been adhered to by the respondent, while passing the impugned assessment orders. Therefore, the impugned assessment orders have been passed arbitrarily and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled procedure of law.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1080 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Refund of excess tax paid - petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer could not have adjusted the refund claims of the petitioner against future assessments - HELD THAT:- The Assessing Officer committed a serious error in providing for adjustment of the excess tax against the demands for the later years. We may recall, while framing fresh assessments, the Assessing Officer found that the petitioner had paid certain excess tax in two of the four years concerned. In the other two years, where the tax was payable he raised a demand and we are told that such tax was also paid by the petitioner. For the years 2009-2010 and 2010-11, therefore, where the petitioner had admittedly suffered excess tax deduction at source as compared to his tax liability and thereafter deposited further amounts by way of pre-deposit for maintaining his revision petitions, he was entitled to refund thereof. Under sub-section (1) of Section 43 of Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004, the Commissioner would refund to a dealer the amount of tax, penalty or interest, if any, paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him. Section 45 provides for payment of interest if the refund is not made within the time prescribed. Sub Section (1) of Section 46 provides that where an order giving rise to refund is subject matter of an appeal or further proceeding or where any other proceeding under the Act is pending and the Commissioner is of the opinion that grant of such refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue and it may not be possible to recover the amount later, the Commissioner may withhold the refund till such time as he may determine.
It is true that the TVAT Rules provide for a mechanism for grant of refund. In particular, Rule 35 requires the registered dealer to file a refund application before the concerned authority in prescribed manner. sub-rule (4) of Rule 35 prescribes a time limit for making such an application for refund. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer himself while framing fresh assessments had declared that the petitioner shall not be granted refund but the excess tax collected would be adjusted against the future assessments. Till this order was set aside, therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to file refund claim. Any such refund application filed under Rule 35 of the TVAT Rules would have been summarily dismissed.
The portion of the order dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer providing for adjustment of the excess tax to be adjusted for future assessment is set aside. However, if by virtue of the operation of the said order for any future liability such excess tax or any part thereof is already adjusted, the question of refund at this stage will not arise - The authority shall verify the petitioner’s claim that for future years, he had no further tax liability and refund such excess tax with statutory interest which may not have been adjusted against the future liability of the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within 3(three) months from today.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1011 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - Section 45 of the VAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Sub-clause (2) of the Section 45 of the VAT Act, 2003 makes it very clear that the provisional attachment would cease to have effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). It appears that no fresh order has been passed after the first order dated 15.06.2016 came to be passed. It is very unfortunate that the HDFC Bank also has not permitted the writ applicant to operate her account, despite the fact that the provisional attachment cannot be said to exist on this date.
This writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1010 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of DVAT - it appears that the petitioner is praying for refund of the DVAT for 4th quarter of the assessment year 2013 - period 01.01.2014 to 31.03.2014 - HELD THAT:- The respondents authorities are directed to decide the claim of refund of the petitioner in accordance with law, rules and regulations and in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1009 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Revision of assessment - revision on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished the certificates in the specified form with regard to the sales effected by them to Government Departments - further contention of the petitioner is that no sufficient opportunity was granted to them by the fourth respondent for production of the required certificates with regard to the sales effected by them to the Government Departments - change of opinion - HELD THAT:- This Court, after giving due consideration to the revision notice dated 31.12.2019 issued by the fourth respondent and the impugned assessment orders dated 28.08.2020 passed by the same fourth respondent, is of the considered view that, no sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to produce the required certificates, with regard to the sales effected by them to the Government Departments. If the same was intimated to the petitioner in the revision notice dated 31.12.2019 itself, the petitioner might have placed the required certificates before the fourth respondent during the assessment proceedings. However, without any request being made to the petitioner, arbitrarily, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders, dated 28.08.2020 revising the assessment on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the required certificates for the sales effected to Government Departments, to enable them to avail concessional rate of tax.
The learned counsel before this Court on instructions has also submitted that the petitioner is willing to produce all the necessary certificates before the fourth respondent, if the matter is remanded back to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration.
This Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders dated 28.08.2020 passed by the fourth respondent are arbitrary and the principles of natural justice has been violated by the fourth respondent while passing the impugned assessment orders - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 949 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Non-issuance of Form-D - approval of the scheme of amalgamation by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi - Section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act - infringement of exemptions granted by the State Government vide notification dated 03.03.2016 - merger and amalgamation done under Section 391 and 394 of the Indian Companies Act - HELD THAT:- The action of respondents in not issuing Form D in favour of Revisionist in pursuance of order dated 26.2.2016 is unjustified and arbitrary as the stock transferred on merger of Company has been treated to be sold by the transferor Company without there being any evidence with the Department to substantiate such claim - The action of respondents in not issuing Form D in favour of the revisionist also ignores the exemption granted by the State Government by notification dated 3.3.2016.
The Tribunal as well as Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that by virtue of merger and amalgamation having been done under Sections 391 and 394 of Indian Companies Act, tax benefits and exemptions that were available to Transferor Company would also enure to the Transferee Company i.e. Revisionist.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Dalmia Power Ltd. and another vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Trichy, [2019 (12) TMI 991 - SUPREME COURT] has considered the consequences of merger of two Companies on the basis of an approved Amalgamation Scheme - The Supreme Court made these observations in a case where revised Income Tax Returns were rejected by the Department on merger of the transferor and transferee Company. The Supreme Court relied upon its observations in MARSHALL SONS AND COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER [1996 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] to observe that pursuant to the Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation, the assessment of the transferee Company must take into account the income of both the transferor and transferee Companies - It was observed that filing of revised returns by the transferee Company was not because of any omission or wrong statement contained in the original returns but because delay occurred on account of time taken to obtain sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation.
In the present case the predecessor Company/transferor Company have been succeeded by the Revisionist/ transferee Company who had taken over its business along with assets, liabilities, profits and losses etc. The stock transferred as a result of amalgamation was not a sale requiring issuance of certificate by M/s. Ritesh Vyaapar Ltd. in favour of the Revisionist as per the Exemption Notification of 2016.
The questions on which the Revision was initially admitted are answered in favour of the Revisionist - Revision allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 948 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - assessing authority passed deemed assessment order under Section 12C(8) of the Act in terms of Notification No.FD 116 CSL 2006(3) dated 31.03.2006 without considering the revised return filed by the petitioner which was filed before the deemed acceptance of the annual returns - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, the orders have been passed under Section 12C(8) of the Act. Section 12-C(2) of the Act provides that where before completion of self assessment, returns submitted or any compliance furnished under sub Section (1) is found to involve mistake apparent on record, the assessing authority shall afford an opportunity to the dealer to submit revised return or to rectify such mistake. Thus, it is evident that the provision for filing the revised return was in existence in the statute. It is trite law that once a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purposes of assessment. Section 25-A of the Act deals with rectification of the mistake - Admittedly, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessing authority passed an order taking into account the original return instead of revised return on 31.05.2006, 28.08.2006 and 31.08.2006. The petitioner had filed the revised returns in Form No.4 on 12.04.2006, 19.08.2006 and 30.05.2006. Therefore, in view of second proviso to Section 25A of the Act, on expiry of sixty days, the revised return should have been deemed to have been accepted. However, after a period of sixty days, the adjudicating authority passed an order on 31.10.2007, 21.01.2008, and 05.01.2008, which were per se without jurisdiction. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was neither considered by first appellate authority nor by the tribunal. The tribunal has decided the question of law erroneously, which arose for its consideration.
The orders of rectification dated 31.10.2007, 21.01.2008 and 05.01.2008 passed by the adjudicating authority, orders dated 09.07.2008, 10.07.2008 and 11.07.2008 passed by the first appellate authority and order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the tribunal are hereby quashed - Revision allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 947 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity of reassessment order - Assessing Authority issued a revised notice under Section 39(1) of the Act proposing to reject monthly returns filed in respect of tax periods (5 months) were there was short payment of tax by the petitioner and undertake re-assessment only in respect of said tax periods - petitioner submitted that the authorities have grossly erred in ignoring the provision as it stood during the disputed period and instead considering the amended Section 39(1) of the Act which came into force with effect from 01.04.2007 - Section 39(1)(a) of Karnataka VAT Act - HELD THAT:- Even prior to amendment with effect from 01.04.2007, the Assessing Authority under Section 39(1) of the Act could re-assess the tax, if it has grounds to believe that any return furnished is deemed as assessed is incorrect or that any assessment issued under Section 38 understate the correct tax liability and could reassess the additional tax payable. Section 2(33) of the Act read with Rule 37(2) with the Rules defines tax period to mean a calendar month. Section 35 of the Act requires dealers to file returns for each tax period and as per Section 38 of the Act every dealer is deemed to be assessed to tax based on the return filed by him under Section 35 of the Act.
Admittedly, there has been a short payment of tax in respect of tax periods namely April, June, July and August 2005, April, May, August, November and December 2006 and February 2007. It is also not in dispute that the orders of re-assessments have been passed in respect of the periods where there has been a short payment of tax. The Assessing Authority in the light of Section 2(33) of the Act and Rule 37(2) of the Rules has rightly taken each month as separate period of assessment. It is also pertinent to note that Section 35 requires dealers to file returns for each tax period and as per Section 38 every dealer is deemed to be assessed to tax as per Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, deemed assessment applies for each tax period and Assessing Authority while taking up re-assessment proceeding has to consider the tax paid in respect of each month and not for the year as a whole. Section 39(1) of the Act requires the Assessing Authority to reassess the additional tax payable. Therefore, the Assessing Authority has rightly reassessed the tax period in respect of which there was a short payment of tax.
The reliance placed by the petitioner on the audited statement of accounts is misplaced as the same cannot be considered to be return and the same would tantamount to doing violence to the provisions of Sections 35(1) and Section 35(4) of the Act, which prescribe time periods for filing and revising of returns. It is pertinent to note that payment of tax due, if any, with Form VAT-115 and Form VAT-240 is only facility to pay the balance of tax, which was not paid in the earlier opportunities of filing the returns connected and revised returns as the case may be so that tax due according to law should be remitted to state in full. The aforesaid provision would not exempt assessee from payment of original tax liability under Section 35(1). The tax has to be assessed as per provisions of the Act, which provide for tax period as a month. Even though, Tribunal may have referred to amended provisions of the Act, however, it is trite law that mere mention of a wrong provision would not invalidate an order so long as power exists with the authority. In the instant case, the re-assessment have rightly been initiated as the power to do so exists even under the un-amended Section 39(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has neither failed to decide any question of law nor has decided any question law erroneously.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 946 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Works contract service - Composite Contract or not - fabrication and erection of aluminum structures and other glazing works contract - assessing authority framed assessment under Section 39(1) of the Act and held that the nature of activity carried on by the petitioner falls under Entry 23 of Sixth Schedule to the Act as 'all other works contract not specified in any of the above categories including the composite work with one or more categories' - HELD THAT:- The tribunal has recorded a finding that from the terms and conditions of the contract, it is evident that petitioner has undertaken composite work contracts. The major portion of the work executed by the petitioner pertains to structural glazing, curtain walling, suspended glazing, structural spider glazing, ACP cladding, fixed glazing, fabrication and supply of aluminum and MS windows, Ventilator and louvers, external doors, canopy etc and work of fabrication and erection of MS structure work is only meager and a small percentage both in quantum and volume. It has also been held that works contract of all these works consisting of window wall glazing to the external walls of the building, spider structural glazing, patch fitted partitions, double glazed sky light roofing, providing aluminum windows and louvers, canopy, clay tile cladding, installation of external fixture and glazing works, stripe glazing, suspended spider glazing, doors in terrace etc., put together which is termed as works contract of 'structural glazing', 'suspended glazing', 'curtain walling', 'ACP cladding', 'spider glazing', 'fixed glazing', are not specified in any of the categories of Entry No.1 to 21 and are works along with the categories covered by Entry Nos.3 and 4.
Thus, it has been held that the nature of activities of the petitioner fall within Entry 23 of Sixth Schedule to the Act and are liable to tax at 12.5%. The aforesaid finding of fact is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The finding recorded by the tribunal cannot be termed as perverse - The tribunal has neither failed to decide nor has erroneously decided any question of law.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 907 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Accounts - recovery of tax arrears - TNVAT Act - it is contended that inasmuch as the impugned order for recovery had been issued for the amount under an assessment order which has been set aside, such demand cannot survive and would have to be nullified - HELD THAT:- There is substantial force in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, which deserves acceptance and the impugned orders of recovery of the amounts demanded for the assessment made for the year 2013-2014 under the TNVAT Act, is set aside. Though obvious, it is made clear that the First Respondent is not precluded from recovering any amount due from the Petitioner in respect of fresh order of assessment passed by the First Respondent in Order No. TIN 33830947422/ 2013-14 dated 21.09.2015, if not already paid, by appropriate legal proceedings in the manner recognized by law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (12) TMI 906 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction holding that It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute.
There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that the contentions raised in this Writ Petition could not be agitated in the appeal before the Appellate Authority - Viewed from that perspective, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in this case, touching upon disputed questions of fact for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 905 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of natural Justice - Non-application of mind - second respondent has observed that no document with regard to the purchase mentioned in the proposal made by the respondents for revision of assessments on the petitioner, has been produced by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders passed by the second respondent are arbitrary and have been passed by total non application of mind - The second respondent ought to have furnished the documents which they are relying upon for passing the impugned assessment orders to the petitioner, as the petitioner has discharged his burden, as per Section 17 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As seen from the impugned assessment orders, the second respondent has passed the same only on the ground that no document has been furnished by the petitioner with regard to the proposal made by them for revision of assessments.
The other ground for passing the impugned assessment orders is that before the Enforcement Wing Officials during their inspection, the petitioner has admitted that he is not having any documents for having effected inter-state sales / purchases and the Enforcement Wing Officials have also submitted their report that the petitioner has indeed effected sales /purchase from other States.
It is settled law that there must be an independent assessment made by the second respondent, while passing the assessment orders under Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The second respondent cannot mechanically accept the findings of the Enforcement Wing Officials in his report submitted to the second respondent. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra will also reveal the fact that the documents seized by the Enforcement Wing Officials from the petitioner must reveal the fact that the sale / purchase comes within the meaning of “transaction”.
Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders have been passed by total non application of mind and principles of natural justice has been violated by the second respondent by not affording copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner in his replies - matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 904 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner having sent replies to the pre-revision assessment notices sent by the second respondent for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the same has not been considered by the second respondent in the impugned assessment orders - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that personal hearing is mandatory - Hence, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the non-consideration of the replies sent by the petitioner for the revision of assessment notices sent by the second respondent and for not affording personal hearing to the petitioner in the assessment proceedings, the second respondent has violated the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.
The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to raise all objections available to him under law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 886 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Recovery of Tax Arrears - benefit of Section 31 of the IBC 2016 - before the annual return could be filed by M/s Bhushan Steel Limited, it appears that certain claim under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the State Bank of India before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 31, which was amended prospectively w.e.f. 16.08.2019, in so far as the tax arrears arising from the impugned assessment orders, are concerned.
Put up in the additional cause list on 07.01.2021 at 2 P.M. for further hearing, along with records of Writ Tax No.1085 of 2018, Writ Tax No.697 of 2019, Writ Tax No.843 of 2019 and Writ Tax No.609 of 2020 - Before the next date fixed, the parties may also exchange affidavits.
-
2020 (12) TMI 880 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exempt sales or not - demand notice challenged on the ground that it has been made after the lapse of six years from 30.06.2012 when the assessment for the year 2009-2010 was deemed to have been made as it is in contravention of the bar created in Section 27(1) as well as Section 84(1) of the TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- It is clearly evident from the dictum laid down in the authoritative pronouncements in SALES TAX OFFICER & ANR. VERSUS SUDARSANAM IYENGAR & SONS [1969 (8) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT] that for the purpose of reckoning limitation of six years from the date of assessment under the relevant provision of the TNVAT Act, what is crucial to be ascertained is that the re-assessment proceedings should have commenced within that time limit in order to be valid, and the date of its conclusion would be inconsequential.
Having regard to that settled position of law, the notice for commencing re-assessment proceedings had been issued in the present case on 08.10.2018, which is beyond the period of six years from 30.06.2012 when the assessment was deemed to have been made. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the impugned Notice issued by the Respondent for re-assessment of tax liability of the Petitioner under the TNVAT Act and the same is quashed.
Petition ordered.
-
2020 (12) TMI 879 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy of petition was available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed these Writ Petitions challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority.
It is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 784 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Legality and validity of the impugned prohibitory order - validity of Attachment Order - petitioner is a non-executive director and M/s. Twilight Mercantiles Limited is a public limited company - petitioner contended that such prohibitory order, demand notice and attachment order cannot be issued against a non-executive director of a public limited company - Section 44(6) of the MVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The present case is squarely covered by our decision in Shri. Girdhari Lal Lath [
2020 (10) TMI 202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is an admitted position, at least no dispute has been raised, that M/s. Birla Electricals Limited is a public company. If that be so, the fact that Petitioner was a director of the said company for the relevant period, though in a nonexecutive character and stated to have resigned, would have no bearing on fastening of liability on the Petitioner for the alleged default of M/s. Birla Electricals Limited. In such circumstances, attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner does not appear to be justified and is without any legal sanction.
The impugned prohibitory order dated 12.02.2018, the demand notice dated 18.12.2018 as well as the attachment order dated 10.06.2019 cannot be sustained qua the petitioner - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 752 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner contends that it had suffered serious prejudice on account of such violation of principles of natural justice and so the impugned assessment order by the 1st respondent and the consequential garnishee order issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent require to be set aside - HELD THAT:- It is obvious that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner had suffered grave prejudice on account of non-service of the pre-assessment show-cause notice on it by 1st respondent.
The matter is remitted back to 1st respondent for fresh consideration - the 1st respondent shall serve a show-cause notice on the petitioner in accordance with rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules indicating the proposed tax and the turnover on which it is sought to be imposed - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 751 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Remission of amount of tax deducted at source from the bills of the petitioner under the repealed Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - refund of amount of tax deducted source from the bills of the petitioner after the coming into force of the Act with appropriate interest thereon - restoration of registration cancelled under the Act for failure to pay the amount of tax under the Act for the period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 - HELD THAT:- The issue can best be resolved with the petitioner appearing before the respondent no. 2, who shall, after ascertaining the information from all departments/sources, ensure passing of appropriate directions for adjustment of the tax deducted under various Statutes and refund of the amount, due and admissible, in accordance with law. Such deduction, adjustment and refund has to be in terms of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act/Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act.
The petitioner are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2, namely, Road Construction Department through its Secretary having its office at Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna on 28th December, 2020 at 10:00 A.M. - Petition stands disposed of.
-
2020 (12) TMI 694 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Issuance of C-Forms - inter-state purchase of natural gas which is consumed by the petitioner in the manufacture of commodities no longer defined as ‘goods’ - petitioner has been denied ‘C’ forms on the ground that natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sale is used for manufacturing of float glass which is not covered by the definition of goods under section 2(d) of the CST Act - HELD THAT:- In CARPO POWER LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [2018 (4) TMI 146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] Punjab & Haryana High Court dealt with the challenge made by the petitioner to refusal of the respondents to issue ‘C’ forms in respect of natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sale and used by it for generation of electricity and it was held that The respondents are liable to issue ‘C' Forms in respect of the natural gas purchased by the petitioner from the Oil Companies in Gujarat and used in the generation or distribution of electricity at its power plants in Haryana.
It may be mentioned that against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Carpo Power Limited, State had filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court but the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court by holding that there was no legal and valid ground for interference.
A case for interim relief has been made out. Further, there should be uniformity in orders in similar matters - as an interim measure, we stay operation of the letter / order dated 22.08.2019 issued by respondent No.2 and direct the respondents to issue necessary ‘C’ forms to the petitioner.
Stand over to 06.01.2021.
|
