|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 724 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1596 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t prays that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn, as the appellant proposes to file a writ petition praying for return of the 'C' forms, so as to enable the appellant to get the 'C' forms rectified from the purchasing dealer. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1580 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only direction that can be granted at this stage is, to direct the competent authority-respondent No.5 to consider the replies in the light of the observations made supra and also in the light of the amended definition of “marriage hall” and in terms of the Circular No. 1/2012- 13,GST/CR.11/2011-12 dated 03/04/2012 and in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms (i) Respondent No.5 is directed to consider the said reply already on record and the additional reply, if any to be filed by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said reply. (ii) In the interregnum, the petitioner would register itself under the provisions of the Act with effect from 01/04/2012 under protest and without prejudice to its contentions. (iii) The contentions and prayers made with regard to the Constitutional validity of Section3-C read with Section 2(5-B) of the Act are left open at this stage. (iv) No costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1579 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fact, in another unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S.T. Rev. No.104 of 2010 dated 15.11.2010, similar issues came up for consideration. After referring to Empees Modern Rice Mill's (supra) wherein how levy of tax on paddy in industrial unit has to be levied so far as exemption of sales tax taking into consideration sale of different products i.e. rice, bran etc., learned Judge opined that Empees Modern Rice Mill's(supra) is the perfect law which is applicable to the facts of the said case. The facts in the present case are similar to the one in Empees Modern Rice Mill's(supra) and so also the unreported revision referred to above. Having regard to the decision of this Court on similar issues which has reached finality the decision of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside opining that levy of purchase tax has to be on the entire sales without any deductions towards sale of rice and rice bran. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1555 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee who was issued a show-cause notice and reply thereto obtained. In the obtaining state of facts and law as detailed here in above, no purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the assessing authority to conduct an inquiry afresh. The argument based on the denial of the principles of natural justice for upsetting the order of penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 passed by the assessing officer on May 11, 1999 and upholding the order dated November 17, 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the order dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, is also liable to be negated. For the aforesaid reasons, in my considered opinion, this sales tax revision deserves to be allowed. The judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, as also the order dated November 17, 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the order dated May 11, 1999 passed by the assessing officer is restored.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1531 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment proceedings - Penalty @150% - Held that:- reassessment order has been passed by the AO solely on the basis of show cause notice issued by the Excise Department. It can be seen that the assessment which was previously concluded was reopened on the premise that during the excise raid, it was revealed that the petitioner had clandestinely removed goods without payment of excise duty. The Sales Tax Department, therefore, formed a belief that value of the goods + Excise duty evaded and formed part of turnover of the assessee for the purpose of tax under the VAT Act. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Futura Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (12) TMI 955 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and a similar reassessment order which was passed on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the Excise Department has been set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1516 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment of proceedings - Change of opinion - Wrong applicability of rate of tax - Held that:- Assessing authority has not recorded any finding or had taken view either way as to whether VCD and DVD players, would attract tax at the rate of 12 per cent. under entry 75(i)(a) or at the rate of eight per cent. in the residual entry 75(ii), (iii). The assessing authority simply accepted the return filed by the assessee, and agreed that there was an error in respect of some of the consignments in which tax was erroneously charged at the rate of 12 per cent. He did not express any opinion with regard to taxability of the items so as to accept the argument that the proceedings of reassessment were based on change of opinion. - The order of the Commissioner under section 35 of the Act would form the material, the basis on which the reassessments proceedings have been initiated is the wrong application of rate of tax by the assessing authority. The order of the Commissioner may not be conclusive in that regard but would definitely be a material to initiate proceedings under section 21(2) of the Act. It will be open to the petitioner to establish by producing all such material, which may be relevant that VCD and DVD players are based on different technology and would not fall within the category of entry 75(i)(a), for the purpose of rate of tax, in the proceedings for reassessment. - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of tax under KVAT Act - Respondent was allotted duty-free shops at the arrival and departure terminals of the Bangalore International Airport (old), Bangalore - Registration not obtained - Held that:- In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court Hotel Ashoka (Indian Tour. Dev. Cor. Ltd.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [2012 (2) TMI 62 - Supreme Court of India] holding such sales which are in the course of import or export are not liable to pay tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petitions - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1514 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - Held that:- Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce the books of accounts pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent in reassessment proceedings under section 39(1) of the Act. The petitioner thereafter filed an application dated November 11, 2013, seeking declined of the reassessment order. By endorsement dated November 14, 2013, the request for rectification has not been entertained by stating that as the petitioner had not produced the books of accounts for verification nor responded to the notice issued under section 39(1) of the Act and the reassessment has been made having no other alternative. The endorsement issued for rectification shows that there are no apparent mistakes in the reassessment order and therefore, the application for rectification cannot be considered. - As the reassessment order as well as the endorsement impugned in these writ petitions have been passed without looking into the books of accounts, the only relief that could be granted to the petitioner is, to permit its representative to appear before the respondent-authority, so that its application seeking rectification could be considered after verifying the books of accounts to be produced by the petitioner - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the respondent/petitioner is bound to pay tax as per the provisions of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or entitled to get deduction as per the provisions of section 3B(2)(b) of the said Act - Held that:- identical matters [2009 (7) TMI 1159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and [2013 (7) TMI 492 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] have been dealt with and both the Division Benches have uniformly and consistently held that if a person carries on his work on the basis of works contract and in connection with works contract purchased raw materials and subsequently converted the same as finished goods, he is not liable to pay tax under section 3(2) of the said Act and entitled to get deduction as per section 3B(2)(b) of the same. Since the decisions relied upon by the respondent/petitioner are later in point of time and since in the said decisions identical matters have been dealt with and ultimately found that in case of works contract, the person who engaged in the works contract, need not pay tax on finished goods as per section 3(2) of the said Act and he is entitled to get deduction under section 3B(2)(b) of the said Act, it is needless to say that the contention put forth on the side of the appellants/respondents cannot be accepted, whereas, the contention put forth on the side of the respondent/petitioner is really having subsisting force. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1508 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Exemption of tax under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Rejection of review filed under Rule 25(3)(C) - whether the unit is self-financed or it is financed by any financial institution. - Date of application of loan - whether the assessee had applied for a term loan to the Oriental Bank of Commerce on 5.1.2000 as alleged or on 1.5.2000 as held by the authorities - Held that:- A bare perusal of the two applications alleged to have been submitted by the assessee for grant of term loan which have been filed by the revenue along with the counter affidavit reveals that the application dated 5.1.2000 is for a term loan of Rs.1,52,000/- and a cash credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- total Rs.3,52,000/-. It has been submitted by one Smt. Kamal Narang as proprietor of the assessee - The other application for term loan dated 1.5.2000 is only for a term loan of Rs.1,52,000/-. It has been submitted on behalf of Smt. Kamal Narang - A bare perusal of the two applications clearly reveals that they are two different applications and the application dated 5.1.2000 is by the assessee whereas the application dated 1.5.2000 is in the individual capacity of the proprietor of the assessee firm. The financial assistance sought by both the applications are different.
No evidence was adduced to establish that no application was filed by the assessee for the grant of term loan on 5.1.2000 - tribunal as well as a Divisional Level Committee have manifestly erred in rejecting the exemption application of the petitioner - assessee is held entitle to grant of exemption under Section 4-A of the Act subject to fulfillment of other conditions - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1012 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - Exemption of trade tax on the sale of rice - Notification No. 709 - Held that:- units of Khadi Gram Udyog Board were entitled for exemption of trade tax on the sale of rice under the Government Order dated 31.01.1985 and Government Order dated 27.02.1997. Accordingly, the exemption from trade tax liability on the sale of rice claimed on the basis of Government Order dated 27.02.1997, was rightly given - the words "processing, packaging and marketing of cereals, pulses, masalas and chhonks" have been used. Thus it was processing of the cereals and not processing of paddy. The word cereal means paddy, rice and all other food grains. Thus the exemption granted to the petitioner on the sale of rice was fully covered in the word 'cereals'.
The exclusion of specific goods clearly proves that the excluded goods were included in this clause prior to that date of exclusion. The notification dated 30.09.2004, which carries exclusion of some goods will apply prospectively and not with retrospective effect. The reassessment under Section 21 (2) on the basis of notification dated 30.09.2004, which was not applicable for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04, was illegal - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 921 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Initiation of penal proceedings - Held that:- The assessee did not produce any material, except to the extent on merits, to hold that penalty cannot be levied - if the assessee had had no grievance as regards the issue raised by the Revenue proposing to levy penalty before the first Appellate Authority, we do not find any inhibition even otherwise on the authority of the Joint Commissioner to invoke his revisional powers to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to invoke penalty in view of Section 23 on the violation of Form XVII. Thus, we reject the prayer of the assessee as to the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to give such directions to the Assessing Officer as regards initiation of penal proceedings - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 873 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Applicability of Section 62 - Alternate remedy available to plaintiff - petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing show cause notices - Held that:- the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal, under the VAT Act. The petitioner's pleas, in essence, are that the impugned order is erroneous on facts, and in law. A due consideration of the arguments reveals that the impugned order may, at best, disclose an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction but does not disclose an assumption of jurisdiction where there is none. Where a statute confers an alternative remedy, power under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised if the impugned order discloses an assumption of jurisdiction, where there is none. Where, however, the impugned order, prima facie, discloses an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the party aggrieved would be required to approach the appellate forum. The petitioner's case pertains to an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, namely, exigibility to sales tax of `slump sale', applicability of the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Coromandal Fertilisers Limited versus State of AP and others [1998 (10) TMI 525 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and legality of the penalty and, therefore, can be validly urged before the appellate forum. The petitioner has approached this Court, as a precondition to the filing of an appeal is the requirement to pre-deposit a part of amount claimed by the revenue. We are not inclined, to entertain the appeal merely because the petitioner is statutorily required to pre-deposit tax and penalty - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 804 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tax Evasion - no evidence was produced by the assessee inspite of allowing time to produce the record, and on the basis of this, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order reiterating the earlier assessment order - Held that:- While as per the remand order, the Assessing Officer was required to frame a fresh assessment order after complying the remand order passed by the Revisional Authority, but it appears that mechanically assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer.
When remand order was very specific in respect of certain directions, then those points ought to have been considered by the Assessing Officer even without production of any material by the assessee. The Assessing Officer ought to have recorded a fresh finding that there was tax evasion by the petitioner, on the basis of some material and documentary evidence tax evasion was found proved. But, in the Assessment Order and Revisional Order we do not find any such finding while it was necessary for the Assessing Officer and Revisional Authority to record such findings.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of non-production of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority the Assessing Authority was under an obligation to meet out all the directions, but it appears that the Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order, while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the law - Matter remitted back to Assessing Officer to comply with the remand order - Following decision of M/s Shri Sharda Domestic Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of M. P. and others [2013 (4) TMI 464 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 771 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Value of dyes and chemicals - Work contract - Held that:- tax liability is drawn in the ambit of definition of sales in clause (i) and (ii) of S.2(t) of M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 and, therefore, material used and transferred in the same form or otherwise, it is deemed sales and is liable to tax under the provisions of Act that those materials like fuel, water, labour, which are consumed but not transferred to the contractee are not deemed sales whereas material which are transferred in the same form or in other form are deemed sale, according to the case of Gannon Dunkerley (1992 (11) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has rightly held that goods used in process of sizing of yarn is transferred to the contractee and is liable to tax. Consequently we find that no error or fault could be found in the impugned order passed by Divisional Deputy Commissioner in revision petition and we hold that according to 46th amendment of Constitution of India as already held above, the State Governments are empowered to the levy tax on the goods transferred otherwise than in pursuance of contract i.e., in execution of work contract and hence undoubtedly the State is entitled to levy tax on the value of material involved in the execution of job work/work contract - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 770 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tax on the turnover upto the level of base production, in which stock transfer and consignment would not be included - Exemption with reference to the turnover of sales - Held that:- if the interpretation suggested by the petitioner is accepted in that event the unit will be entitled to exemption on branch transfer as well as on consignment sale without paying any trade tax either in the State of U.P., or Central, and would also at the same time be entitled to the exemption from, or reduction in trade tax on the production, over and above the base production, which was not the intention of the notification. The exemption on the stock transfer, or transfer of goods for consignment sale, is by the operation of law inasmuch as they do not fall within the purview of sale. This benefit is available even to the existing Units. Under Section 4-A of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder the benefit of exemption to the existing units, which have undergone expansion, diversification or modernisation is contemplated on the quantity of the goods in excess of the base production. The quantity of base production is determined only once on the consideration of the capacity of the production and maximum production of any one year of preceding five consecutive years. Such determined quantity of base production is the basis for the exemption for the period, for which the unit is entitled for exemption. The unit which has undergone expansion is thus entitled for the exemption on the turnover of the quantity in excess of the "quantity of base production" plus stock of the base production of the previous years - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 718 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rejection of books of accounts - Whether the account books maintained by an assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 12 (2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act can be rejected merely on the ground that they were not produced at the time of survey - Rejection of books of accounts in previous assessment assessment years - Held that:- non-production of the books of accounts at the time of survey is an important fact, which can be taken into consideration by the Assessing officer while examining the return to find out whether the same is incorrect or incomplete. Non-production of books of accounts at the time of assessment does not take away the effect of non-production at the time of survey. Such non-production is a relevant factor which can be considered by the Assessing Officer while considering whether the books of accounts are to be accepted as to have been maintained in the regular course of business. It is incumbent upon the assessee to offer plausible explanation as to why they were not produced at the time of survey. The burden is on the assessee to show as to why no adverse inference should be drawn - books of account were already rejected in the earlier assessment years and no appeal was filed. So, the said books of accounts are useless for the assessment years under consideration - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 654 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reduced rate of tax - Section 3-D(7) - the plea that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of reduced rate of tax i.e. at the rate of 2% on sale of oil seeds to a purchaser having recognition certificate against Form 3-B and for exemption from tax in respect of the sales made against Form 3-C(1) has been reduced. - Held that:- Tribunal has clearly loss sight of Clause (3) of the notification dated 29th August, 1987 while holding that in view of the fact that earlier notifications issued under Section 4-B have been superseded the assessee was not entitled to the reduced rate of tax. In like manner the exemption from tax qua the sale effected against Form 3-C(1) has also to be considered as per section 3-D(7) afresh - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 653 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Revision of penalty - Whether Mineral water and water sold in sealed Bottles or Containers or otherwise - However, Adjudicating authority found that plastic jar containing 20 litres water has not been sealed by the assessee and it is simply sold after putting a lid on the jar - Held that:- The learned appellate authority as well as the learned Tax Board has recorded a concurrent finding of fact based on proper appreciation of materials on record while construing the circular issued by the State Government. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no infirmity, much less legal infirmity, in the impugned order passed by the learned Tax Board - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 613 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Discrepancy in books of accounts - Non recording of inter state sales - Held that:- in absence of inter-State sale transaction in the books of accounts, no bills were found, no such transactions were found in the books of accounts and yet, they have been found to be carried out in fact. It also further appears that there was a remarkable difference in the stock actually found and the one recorded in the books of accounts. It was further noted that the sale transactions were not tallying with the lorry receipts, sales' bills and delivery challans collected by the Department at the time of visit to the residential and business premises of the appellant-assessee, where the numbers were handwritten and were not printed serially. No satisfactory reasons and explanation had come forth when the inquiry was made and that eventually led the authority to conclude that with a view to avoid the payment of tax, there was a suppression all around - when the Commissioner had reason to believe that whole or any part of the taxable turnover of the dealer in respect of the period in question had escaped assessment or had been under assessed, by exercise of powers given under the statute, he determined the amount of tax to the best of his judgment and added 100% of such turnover, within a statutory period of five years as prescribed under the law and, therefore, we find neither any error on facts nor in law giving rise to any substantial question of law for us to indulge in any of these Tax Appeals - Decided against assessee.
........
|
