|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 62 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1565
... ...
... ... ..... learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 14.9.2010, is set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondent may issue separate notices to the petitioner, for the four different assessment years and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the objections raised by the petitioner and taking into consideration the relevant records submitted by the petitioner, at the time of the hearing. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1511
... ...
... ... ..... ules are unconstitutional. Therefore, the argument advanced by the petitioner fails. The argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for Revenue is well founded and the same is accepted. If there are frequent tax audits and arbitrary action by the subordinate officers with a view to harass the individual dealers or class or dealer, the same should be brought to the notice of the Commissioner. 8. In view of the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Revenue, Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed. 9. In the fact and circumstances of the case, we direct to conduct assessment proceeding by issuing fresh notice of hearing. The assessment notice may be issued by the officer who has not conducted the tax audit. 10. All other factual aspects are open for the petitioner-dealer to reflect in the reply to the show cause, which shall be considered by the assessing authority. Free copy of this order be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1494
... ...
... ... ..... du, reported in 2010 U.P.T.C. 1309. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. In the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that where the supply is FOR destination under the contract the ownership of the goods remained with the supplier till they are delivered at the destination station, the amount of freight and insurance charges incurred by the dealer form part of the sale price. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Let the Tribunal may decide the appeal afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra). The revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 23rd July, 2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra).
-
2011 (1) TMI 1343
Whether the MRTP Act is a self-contained Code or not, if so, to what effect?
Whether, in any event, all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 with emphasis on Section 11A can be read into the provisions of the MRTP Act?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1336
... ...
... ... ..... proved the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer. It is not necessary on the part of the approving authority to give detailed reasons lest it may be said he had influenced the reassessment proceedings on merit. 17. The notice cannot be invalidated on this account. The writ petition has no merit. 18. The petitioner may appear before the Assessing Officer in the week commencing 14th February, 2011 and file the certified copy of this order before him. Thereafter, the cases may be decided in accordance with law. 19. This Court while entertaining the writ petition had restrained the Assessing Officer from passing the final order order in the reassessment proceedings. In view of this, we clarify that the time taken till the certified copy of this order is filed before the Assessing Officer will be excluded while calculating the limitation for passing order on the reassessment proceedings. 20. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. In favour of revenue.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... therein, the appellate authority may not be in a position to take a different view in the matter to distinguish and interpret the same. In the circumstances, it is advisable for the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the matter as it involved disputed question of fact and law and whether it falls within the purview of Service Tax Act or VATAct. While keeping open all the contentions urged, it is for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority but, having regard to the complicated question of law involved and since the Joint Commissioner is the person who represents the Department, he may not be in a position to take a different view. To overcome the inordinate delay in arriving at a decision and also to enable the matter to be expedited, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal so that the matter could be disposed of expeditiously. All contentions are left open to be urged.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1300
Refund demanded of the sum of ₹ 4,62,528 already deducted by the railway and for a relief restraining the railway from deducting any amount from the amounts payable for the goods supplied by the company
Held that:- According to the railway, the company failed to inform the railway in respect of the payment of Central sales tax on the materials in question and that the railway having deposited the amount deducted with the treasury of the State, it is the State Government which shall be directed to refund the amount.
Whether the company produced the relevant materials before the railway at the relevant time is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution. However, before us it is not disputed that the company did pay Central sales tax and that it was not liable to pay the value added tax to the State of Bihar. Allow this petition. We direct the respondent-East Central Railway to refund the amount of tax recovered by it from the company for the supply of goods on which the company had paid Central sales tax
-
2011 (1) TMI 1299
... ...
... ... ..... h vehicles. In that view of the matter, that portion of the circular which specifically instructs the assessing officers to levy and collect entry tax cannot be sustained. While saying this, we may not be understood to have held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bose Abraham 2001 121 STC 614 (SC) ; 2001 3 SCC 157 ; AIR 2001 SC 835 applies or does not apply nor should we be understood as laying down the law that all excavators stand exempted from payment of tax under the Entry Tax Act. In the result, subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of declaring the penultimate paragraph of the circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, being CCT's Ref. No. AI(3)/583/2008, dated October 24, 2008, as without jurisdiction, and as being unenforceable. The second respondent shall have to follow the procedure prescribed under law, and consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1298
If the revisional authority was of the view that the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority is erroneous, they could correct the same and say what the correct law is?
Held that:- It is not as if when an order is passed by the Advance Ruling Authority, he should positively state whether the Advance Ruling Authority was wrong and what is the correct law. That is normally the procedure. In a case of this nature, when the reference to the Advance Ruling Authority itself is too vague and when it is answered in too general terms, as the question of construction work is purely a question of fact, as different materials are used in construction and thereafter they are transferred, the revision authority was justified in leaving that question to be decided by the assessing officer keeping in mind law on the point. The Advance Ruling Authority was not justified in giving their opinion in too general terms and was capable of being misinterpreted. Certainly, the opinion given by the Advance Ruling Authority is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and it is also not in accordance with law.
No justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1297
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that 'grease gun' supplied by the petitioner will not fall under entry 79(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, but falls under the residuary entry?
Held that:- The "grease gun" is a tool/implement as described in Sl. No. 79(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act and consequentially, the rate of tax applicable is only four per cent as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in its order dated March 6, 2000. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside. The question of law raised is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner. The revisions are allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1296
Demand notice seeked t be quashed - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that for dispute between the two Departments, the petitioner cannot suffer. In view of the admitted fact that the Excise Commissioner admits the liability to pay sales tax due, we do not consider it expedient to remit the matter to the State Government. As such, we quash the impugned demand notice dated January 14, 1993 contained in annexure 8 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur. It would be open for the Commercial Tax Department to recover the same from the Excise Department.
We accordingly award cost of ₹ 20,000 on the Excise Department which would be payable to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1295
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of bus bodies by the respondent to the exporter of passenger buses qualifies for exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- In the present case, it has been specifically held by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Tribunal that the assessee had produced the relevant information in prescribed form in support of its claim. Once transaction between the assessee and the exporter was integrated to the export, section 5(3) was rightly held to be attracted following the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The view taken by the Karnataka High Court, relied upon by the Tribunal stands affirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. No question of law arises which may require adjudication by this court. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1294
... ...
... ... ..... ot denuded. It is clear from the material on record that the subject-matter of the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is, that portion of the order of the appellate authority which is against the interest of the assessee. The subject-matter of the revision is that portion of the order which is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In those circumstances, we do not see any substance in the said contention. Further, it was contended that he has issued a direction which run counter and against the right of the assessee. In the event of his succeeding in the appeal, the direction issued by the appellate authority which would prevail, otherwise the authority has to consider the case in accordance with law. Even if the matter is remanded, the assessing authority has to consider the claim and counter-claim in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. In those circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1293
Whether the phrase "all kinds of bricks" occurring in entry 2 of the Third Schedule to the Act be declared as exhaustive n so far as the petitioners are concerned?
Whether the clarification No. CLR CR.91/2006-2007 dated September 8, 2006 at annexure A issued by the second respondent be quashed?
Whether reassessment orders at annexures C and D for the assessment periods 2007-08 and 2008-09 bequashed?
Held that:- It is a fit case wherein the impugned orders of the assessment officer passed at annexures C, D and G, respectively, directing the petitioners to pay 12.5 per cent of VATexercising the power under section 4(l)(b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, could be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. It is made clear that the clarification issued in the circumstances, by the Commissioner at annexure A would not be made applicable to the tiles which are in the form of paving bricks and are held to be covered under the exhaustive definition of "all kinds of bricks/ asphalt tiles". It is directed to collect the tax for the said assessment years only at four per cent as provided under entry 2 of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act. Appeal allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1292
Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent-hotel, which got classification as a three star hotel with effect from September 11, 2002, is not liable to pay tax on cooked food and beverages sold in the hotel at eight per cent under entry 46 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for any period prior to the date of granting star classification?
Held that:- Star hotels referred to in entry 46 only mean hotels classified to be a star hotel by the approval and classification committee con stituted by the Government of India. Admittedly, the respondent could not have collected tax at eight per cent for any sale of cooked food or beverages prior to September 11, 2002. In fact, if tax was collected under entry 46 for any period prior to September 11, 2002 then the respondent would have been liable for penal action. So much so, we feel that the star classification referred to in entry 46 is the star classification provided by the Tourism Department for recognition and approval of star hotels.
Liability for tax on cooked food which is generally served in hotels is fixed under the statute with reference to the classification of hotels. In fact, only bar attached hotels and star hotels are specifically covered by entry 46. However other hotels engaged in sale of cooked food or beverages are covered by section 5B, which provides for collection of licence fee. In view of the provisions as above, we feel the respondent is liable for payment of tax at eight per cent under entry 46 from September 11, 2002 onwards, when the approval by the classification committee is made effective. For the periods until then, the responden
-
2011 (1) TMI 1291
... ...
... ... ..... no GR with the driver. The delivery challan with the driver could be destroyed at any time, after the goods reached destination. Production of stock register showing the goods could not take place of GR or invoice as entry in the stock register of the dealer can always be made later on knowing that the goods were detained. The only conclusion which could be arrived at was the goods were meant for trade and were not covered by proper and genuine documents as required under section 51(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act and there was an attempt to evade tax. The authorities below had rightly taken action and imposed penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Act." No illegality or perversity could be shown by the learned counsel for the assessee in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below which may warrant interference by this court. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1290
Maintainability of the writ petition
Held that:- It is rather difficult to accept the submission of the counsel that the petitioner's representation does not bar the writ petition. Though it was not presented in the proper form, it would certainly amount to the petitioner availing of the remedy under the VATAct. Further the second respondent himself treated the representation as an appeal, and returned the same requiring rectification of the mistakes. On this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The transit pass produced before us contains 10 columns only, and the signature of the CTO concerned and the certification by the officer in-charge of the exit check-post are absent. Therefore, we are not inclined to attach any importance to the transit pass produced along with the reply affidavit. We hasten to add that these are questions which have to be agitated before the appellate authority, and the writ petition is not a proper remedy. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1289
Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in proceeding on the footing that in order to discharge the burden of proof contemplated under section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 the proof of existence of registered dealers from whom the assessee purported to have purchased goods is sufficient, ignoring that for claiming second sales exemption the assessee has to prove earlier taxable sale?
Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed an error in not insisting upon proof of actual transaction of sale for claiming second sale exemption?
Held that:- On careful consideration of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, we are convinced that such a conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal was based on relevant facts and materials and there is no reason to take a different view than what has been stated by the said authorities. We, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. The questions of law raised in this revision are, therefore, answered against the petitioner. The tax case revision fails
-
2011 (1) TMI 1288
Order passed by the revisional authority under section 22A(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, forfeiting the sales tax paid by the assessee to the Government and rejecting his request for refund of the wrongly collected amount challenged
Held that:- The Commissioner secured the sales bills and sales particulars of other dealers who are dealing with the very same products before acting on the said documents. He issued one more notice to the assessee bringing to her notice the aforesaid material and calling upon her to show cause as to why the said material should not be taken into consideration. The said material compared with the returns filed by the assessee clearly demonstrate that the amount collected by the assessee is more than what they had collected inclusive of tax and therefore he was of the view that though in the sales bill and account book this tax component is not mentioned the amount which is received as sales consideration was inclusive of tax component. From the aforesaid material we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is based on legal evidence, in accordance with law and do not call for any interference.
The right of appeal has to be worked out within the four corners of law. When the law provides for a statutory appeal against the order of the Commissioner it is not open to the assessee to contend that he should have a right of first appeal, second appeal or revision as provided against the assessment order and therefore we do not see any merit in the said contention. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1287
Whether the order passed by the first respondent in Ref. M2/53216/96 SMR. No. 628/97 dated October 21, 2004 is a non est and unsustainable one in the eye of law?
Held that:- The show-cause notice has been issued in the present case to the petitioner on November 18, 1997. Even though the order has been passed on October 21, 2004 by the first respondent, yet the first respondent has commenced the proceedings to revise the assessment and issued the show-cause notice dated November 18, 1997 within five years from the date of the order of the second respondent dated May 30, 1996 and therefore, there is no violation as per section 34(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and in this regard, the contra plea taken by the petitioner is negatived by this court. Appeal dismissed.
|
