|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 62 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1260 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether the appellant has sold parched groundnut or unparched groundnut?
Held that:- In view of undisputed legal position that the parched groundnuts are different from groundnuts and were not covered by the category of declared goods, mere fact that the Tribunal held to the contrary, in a particular case, is not a ground to interfere with the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1259 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Whether the petitioner did not record rest of the purchases in his books of accounts and thus concealed the transactions with a view to avoiding payment of taxes under the 2005 Act?
Held that:- The authorities below have manifestly erred in holding the petitioner guilty of concealment and in making the impugned orders under section 32(1) of the 2005 Act. In absence of any independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged transactions we need not remand the matter to the assessing officer to consider the matter afresh.
As we have held the impugned orders to be manifestly wrong, made on surmises and conjectures, in absence of any valid material the petitioner need not be relegated to avail of the alternative remedy of statutory appeal before the Tribunal. Appeal allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order of the Tribunal dated November 25, 2010 for the assessment year 2007-08
Held that:- No explanation has been given at the time of survey about the shortage. It has not been told that the stocks were lying in some other room. If it would have been told to the surveying officer that the stock was lying in another shop, the same would have been verified. Therefore, any explanation offered by the applicant that the stock was lying in another room has rightly been rejected by the assessing authority and by the Tribunal. The stock has been valued at ₹ 2 lcas.Therefore, having regard to the value of the stock, which was not found at the time of survey, the estimate of turnover at ₹ 5 lacs of the manufactured tobacco and the purchases of raw materials from the unregistered dealer cannot be said to be excessive or without any basis. However, the Tribunal has erred in levying the tax on the turnover of chemicals @32.5%. Under the Notification No. KA. NI.-2-1084/XI-9 (51)/99................dated 25.2.2003 all kinds of chemicals are liable to tax @4%. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is modified to this extent. The authorities below are directed to recalculate the turnover levying the tax on the chemicals @4% instead of 32.5%. Revision allowed in part.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1257 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar reported in 1997 104 STC 130 (SC) 1997 UPTC 213, has held that the maintenance of manufacturing account is mandatory and in the absence of non-maintenance of manufacturing account, the books of account is liable to be rejected and the best judgment assessment is to be made. In this view of the matter, the books of account in the absence of maintenance of manufacturing account is liable to be rejected. From the perusal of the order, it appears that no reason has been given for the estimate of turnover. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. It will be open to the Tribunal to ask the applicant to produce the other books of account maintained by the applicant. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated June 17, 2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide both the appeals afresh in the light of the observations made above.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1256 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal has already granted stay to the extent of 90 per cent, therefore, no further interference is called for?
Held that:- Having regard to the facts that no assessment order has been passed and present is the case of penalty and considering the entire facts and circumstances and financial hardship, the order of the Tribunal requires little modification. As per order of the Tribunal, the applicant is required to deposit ₹ 29,45,129. In case if the applicant deposits ₹ 15 lacs within a period of one week, the recovery proceeding for the balance amount shall remain stayed till the disposal of appeal. The appellate authority is further directed to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1255 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether ENA manufactured by the applicant is rectified spirit?
Held that:- It is necessary to examine whether ENA, which is claimed to be purified rectified spirit containing 98 per cent alcohol and is not fit for human consumption ceases to be rectified spirit. No enquiry or investigation has been made in this regard by the authorities below. Therefore, in my view, the matter requires reconsideration.
In the result the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated November 22, 2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1254 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cer and the goods under transit. Likewise there is no discrepancy between the entries in the lorry receipt and the documents under transit. The only discrepancy is between the invoice raised by the first inter-State seller to the second inter-State seller in the course of sale in transit. Such discrepancy can only have effect of rejection of the claim of exemption on the second inter-State sale which would result in a levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on the subsequent seller, namely, Sheh Motilal Suresh Kumar. That aspect of the matter has absolutely no relevance to the levy of the impugned penalty. Therefore, relying on the said judgment of this court, it set aside the penalty imposed. In the facts of the case, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order as it is not a case of attempt of evasion of tax or non-payment of tax when there was no tax liability at all under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act. No merits. Dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1253 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether BIEC, an exhibition-cum-sale hall is a building where accommodation is provided for marriage or reception or matters related therewith and functions are conducted in such halls regularly or not, is a "marriage hall" within the definition of the said term under section 2(5B) liable to be impost under section 3C of the Act?
Whether letting out BIEC on hire, for exhibition-cum-sale, is a luxury, meaning services ministering to enjoyment, comfort or pleasure extraordinary to necessities of life, within section 2(4B) attracting the impost under section 3C of the Act?
Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the luxury tax levied and demanded in the notices, annexures G, G1 and L, on the rental income from hiring BIEC and for services rendered therein are legal, valid and sustainable?
Held that:- The meaning of "marriage hall" in section 2(5B) of the Act, is thus comprehended to include halls, building or part of the building where accommodation is provided for the purpose of marriage, reception or matters related therewith.There can be no rigidity that an exhibition-cum-sale hall ex hypothesi be considered to fall within the meaning of section 2(5B) of the Act. The question in each case should be, whether in the light of the cumulative facts, as established, an exhibition-cum-sale hall is a building or a part of the building where accommodation is provided for marriage or reception or matters related therewith, whether functions are conducted in such halls regularly or not? the amendment as also the decision in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.’s case [2005 (1) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
In the result, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings initiated by the respondents, culminating in the notices, annexures G, G1 and L, impugned, are quashed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1252 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether in the instant case, it cannot be said that the demand made by the respondent in Indian currency towards imports cannot be considered as part of purchase price due to increased payment and therefore, he set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the assessing officer?
Held that:- From the material on record, it is not clear, what was the purchase price on the day the order was placed. It is also not clear what is the amount paid by the bank and what is the exchange rate on the date of such payment. In the absence of that crucial material it is not possible to come to any conclusion in that regard. We see full force in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. Therefore, it would be appropriate to set aside all these orders and remand the matter back to the assessing officer so that the appellants would be free to place all relevant materials and then the assessing officer shall pass appropriate orders after carefully going through the said material. That would meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1251 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether rate of tax on the inter-State sales of iron kamani, which is a declared commodity under section 14 of the Central Act, whether it is liable to tax at the rate of four per cent or at the rate of two per cent?
Held that:- The submission of learned counsel for the assessee, that in view of section 15(b) of the Central Act the tax has rightly been levied at the rate of two per cent is misconceived. Section 15(b) does not apply in the present case for the reason—(1) that it contemplates the reimbursement of the tax paid under the State law and (2) in the present case the assessee is the manufacturer of kamani. Kamani has not been sold at any stage in the State of U. P. and no tax was levied and paid on the turnover of kamani under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
In the result, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the order of the assessing authority is liable to be restored so far as it levies the tax on the inter-State sale of kamani at the rate of four per cent.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1250 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether the interpretation placed by the learned single judge on section 3D is correct or not?
Held that:- All the writ appeals are allowed.The interpretation placed by the learned single judge in so far as section 3D is concerned, is hereby set aside.
Consequently, all the assessment orders passed by the authorities are restored. However, the orders imposing liability prior to March 1, 2003 cannot stand and consequently, it is set aside. If there are no assessment orders passed yet, the authorities are at liberty to issue proposition notices, hear the clubs and pass the assessment orders in accordance with law
-
2011 (1) TMI 1231 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the goods 'star anise seeds' (sombu) is liable to be taxed under Entry 28 of Part C of the First Schedule or under Entry 2 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959?
Held that:- While setting aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Assessing Authority, insofar as it related to the assessment years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 in respect of the petitioner in T.C.Nos.642 and 646 of 2006 and assessment year 1998-1999 in respect of the petitioner in T.C.No.643 of 2006, insofar as it related to 'star anise seeds' alone, we remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority to consider the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the clarification letter dated 21.11.2000 for those relevant assessment years and whether the Assessing Authority should follow its own subsequent assessment order in respect of the very same item in relation to the petitioner in T.C.No.643 of 2006 for the assessment year 1999-2000.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1196 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tax revision - right to use - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 - assessees treated the hiring of transit mixers as contract of transport service, and not the transfer of the right to use the goods - vehicles are maintained by the petitioners. They appoint the drivers and fix their roster. The licences, permits and insurances are taken in their names by the petitioners, which they themselves renew. The transit mixers go to Grasim's batching plants in Miyapur and Nacharam, where they are loaded with RMC and then proceed to the construction sites of customers. The product carried is manufactured by Grasim, which is delivered to the customers and the customers pay the cost of the RMC to Grasim and the petitioners nowhere figure in the process of putting the property in transit mixers to economic use – Held that:- entire use in the property in goods is to be exclusively utilised for a period of 42 months by Grasim. The existence of goods is identified and the transit mixers operate and are used for the business of Grasim. Therefore, conclusively it leads to the only conclusion that the petitioners had transferred the right to use goods to Grasim, revision cases fail and dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1195 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ petition – delay in filing appeal - appeal was rejected on the ground that the said appeal, filed with a delay of 528 days, could not be admitted – Held that:- Section 31(1) of the VAT Act, and its first proviso, prescribe a maximum period of 60 days (3,0+30) for an appeal tp be entertained by the appellate authority, and not beyond. As the right of appeal conferred by the VAT Act is subject to the restrictions prescribed therein, and as the delay in the present case of 528 days is far in excess of the maximum period of 60 days within which alone can the appellate authority entertain an appeal under section 31(1), the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium has no application, writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1193 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemption - sale of item under brand name “double mazza” in pouch having two parts, one containing “tobacco” and the other “pan masala” - According to the assessing authority, the disputed item consisted of two commodities, “zarda”, a Schedule I item, and “pan masala”, a Schedule IV item, poured in a single pouch marking two parts separately but the customer had no option to buy either the “zarda” or the “pan masala” alone, and therefore, the disputed item should be treated as taxable under Schedule IV - Held that:- definition of “pan masala” or “pan masala with tobacco”, the General Rules for Interpretation given in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 have to be followed. Therefore, the disputed item manufactured by the dealer containing two separate folders, one for “pan masala” and the other for “tobacco”, but not offered to sale separately, was really a “pan masala containing tobacco” classified in Chapter 24 under the Tariff Heading 2404.49 although it was presented as the unassembled or disassembled article which had the essential character of the complete or finished article. The Tribunal erred in holding that the sale price of “tobacco” included in the total price of the disputed item should merit exemption in terms of the entry 82 of Schedule 1 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1192 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - short payment of the tax - interest on such delayed payment of tax – Held that:- application seeking condonation of delay should be rejected on the principle that the judgment of the competent Court had already attained a finality, no explanation for the delay of one year, no sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner to condone the delay, revision petitions are dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1191 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ petition - contention that dealer not afforded opportunity to be heard not tenable - Held that:- Even after the request made by the officers the petitioner did not produce the account books. After receiving the notice issued by the second respondent, the petitioner sent objections requesting an opportunity of personal hearing before concluding the proceedings, and also produced the books of accounts. During the hearing the petitioner’s authorized representative was asked to explain the turnover relating to purchase of iron and steel from dealers situated outside the State. The authorized signatory then submitted a letter admitting that purchases of raw materials were not shown in the return, and requested to pass an order adding the incorporation value of 10 per cent on the purchase value. The letter belied the petitioner’s only contention that it was denied a personal hearing before the assessment order was passed. The assessment order did not suffer from any error much less a grave error apparent on the face of the record warranting issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order, writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1190 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ petitions - respondent statedly suspended execution of the work, and kept it "on hold". The petitioner allegedly did not submit bills and, therefore, treated the value of the fibre cables laid as part of the work in progress and capitalised the same in the balance sheet. For the two assessment years, the petitioner filed returns declaring "nil" turnover - show-cause notice dated February 10, 2010 was issued proposing to levy tax under section 4(7)(a) of the VAT Act at four per cent and/or 12.5 per cent on the material used in executing the work of laying cables involved in the works contract entrusted by the second respondent to the petitioner – Held that:- Merely because the works are abandoned, or merely because a part of the material was used only by the employer, the works contractor cannot escape VAT liability. In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has fully or partially completed the work of laying fibre cables and, even if it is abandoned by the second respondent, the taxable event under section 4(7)(a) of the VAT Act does not vanish. We are, therefore, not able to accept the submission of the petitioners, writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1188 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Revision petition - additional sales tax under Section 5D of the Act - ground raised by the assessee was not considered by the Tribunal earlier while disposing of the appeal of the assessee, there are no fixed rules governing the scope of the jurisdiction either to review an order or correct mistakes or 'errors apparent' on the face of record, power of review is not confined only to the errors apparent on the face of the record. But in a case like the present one where the power to review is limited only to the cases where the review is sought on the discovery of a new fact, the power to rectify mistakes, no merit in the revision and it is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1050 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cable tray - Whether covered by the term Iron & steel within the meaning of CST Act 1956? - According to Department, sub-section (iv) would apply to only those items of iron and steel which are specified in Clauses (i) to (xiv) thereunder - Held that:- One of the tests would be as to whether the article produced is regarded in trade, by those who deal in it as distinct in identity from the commodity involved in its manufacture - The cable trays of different types and shapes come of the manufacturing process. There cannot be any doubt that the plates have undergone transformation into cable trays and the process involved was manufacturing. These are sold in the market to meet different mechanical and engineering needs as distinct from the plain or chequered plates - cable trays cannot be said to be declared goods within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act - thus the cable trays are not iron and steel as per section 3 of the Second Schedule of Sales Tax Act, 1975 read with section 14(iv) of the Act. Decided against the assessee
Interest under Section 27(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 - Held that:- The dealer had chosen to withhold full payment of turnover tax by obtaining an interim order merely because a lot of others had done so, as it had paid turnover tax, giving full particulars thereof for the previous years - The provisions regarding interest were statutory provisions and there being no order against the running of interest from the time of default, the dealer could not now claim that the demand for interest by the Department was illegal or unauthorized - Decided against the assessee
|
