|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1180 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 3 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/Sec. 78(5) - doubts in documents produced - Held that: - In my view, no case is made out for interference in the order of the Tax Board as merely because the bill and GR appeared to have been prepared with the same handwriting, is no reason at all for coming to such a finding that goods were being carried with the intention of evasion of Tax. It is rather surprising that the AO merely on the basis of comparison of the bills and builty has come to such a conclusion which is wholly unjustified and it appears to have been done just to create an atmosphere of harassing the respondent and in my view, something more was required to be established which the AO has utterly failed and it appears that entire exercise has been done or have taken place sitting in the office and passing such an order which prima-facie does not even show a reasonable basis for imposing penalty. The order passed by the Tax Board is based on finding of fact and I find no error, illegality or perversity in the same so as to call for interference by this Court - petition dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1743 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - defects in the petition - HELD THAT:- Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry, failing which, the Special Leave Petition shall stand dismissed for non-compliance without further reference to the Court.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1667 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of compounding fee - release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - offence under Sections 71 (5) (a) and 71 (5) (b) of CST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is not able to see any merit in the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. In the instant case, the goods were detained for one reason and the order demanding compounding fee was passed on different grounds, not related to detention and goods in transit. Further, the respondent cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority. It is only the Assessing Authority, who can decide, whether tax is leviable, whether there is an attempt for evasion, whether the explanation of the owner / agent is acceptable, whether the documents that are carried with the goods are sufficient, etc.,
This Court is of the considered view that, since the respondent is not the Assessing Officer, he is not entitled to levy and demand any amount of tax, in addition to the tax payable on the value of the goods. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the respondent is against the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed therefor - the impugned order demanding and collecting tax has no legs to stand - petition allowed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1618 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Refund of the amount deposited together with interest - Section 32 of the DVAT Act, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The notices in question even if they were served upon the assessee, do not conform the Rule that was issued much later in the year 2012. What is more disturbing to this Court, however, is that all seven notices produced and relied upon by the Revenue demand “zero” from the assessee and assessed turnover at “zero”. It is not only to the utter dismay of the Court but is entirely un-comprehensible and goes completely untenable.
The respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s application and pass appropriate orders within a week. Any amount deposited by the petitioner, shall be refunded after adjusting tax due together with interest payable in accordance with law within a period of two weeks.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1587 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on Lotteries Act, 2006 - Held that:- The issue decided in the case of N.V. MARKETING PVT. LTD. [2009 (8) TMI 1242 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that Once we find that there is clear legislative competence in the State legislature to legislate, there is no exercise of power being colorable merely because earlier a particular type of tax was levied which was found to be not legal - Interim relief granted, if any, stands vacated.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1583 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - MAHARASHTRA
Rate of Tax - Microcellular Rubber Sheets (Armaflex) - Microcellur Rubber Tubes (Armaflex) - Microcellur Rubber Sheets (Armasound) - section 55 of MVAT ACT, 2002.
Held that:- The words employed in the notification and notes appended with it suggest the intention of the Legislature. Only those commodities are to be taxed as per rate of tax of Schedule Entry 54 of MVAT Act, 2002, which are expressly covered in the Notification and those which do not find a place in the said Notification cannot be covered even if they find a place in the Central Excise Tariff headings or sub-headings.
The Microcellular Rubber Tubes (Armaflex) which is covered by Central Excise Tariff No. 4009 1100. This sub-heading does not appears in the Government Notification issued for the purpose of sechedule entry C-54, therefore it cannot be covered by the scope of that entry.Hence, it is to be covered by the residuary schedule entry.
Microcellular Rubber Sheets (Armasound) is covered by Central Excise Tariff No. 4008 1190. This sub-heading does not appears in the Government Notification issued for the purpose of sechedule entry C-54, therefore it cannot be covered by the scope of that entry. Hence, it is to be covered by the residuary schedule entry.
The Microcellular Rubber Tubes (Armaflex) covered under Central Excise Tariff No. 4009 1100 is used as insulating material.lt is for ducting and piping application for maintaining the required temperatures inside the refrigerating system. This insulation material slows down the rate of heat transfer.lt is not used to transport any material like liquid or gases.lt has different function. Hence in common parlance also it can not be identified as tube. The people conversant with it, identifies the product as insulating material and uses it accordingly.Hence.the alternate submission being goods, covered by Schedule entry C-72 also not tenable.
Application disposed off.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - reason assigned by the respondent in the impugned notice is that the petitioner has not filed their monthly returns from April 2016 till the date of cancellation - TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that:- The cancellation is bad in law for more than one reason. Firstly, the impugned order cancels the registration with retrospective effect. Secondly, the petitioner was not given any notice before such cancellation. Thirdly, the reason assigned in the impugned order appears to be factually incorrect, since copies of the e-returns filed on 15.4.2015 upto May 2016 have been produced before this Court. Fourthly, before cancellation of the registration, Section 39(15) of the said Act mandates an opportunity of personal hearing - the impugned assessment order is held to be illegal - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1576 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Stay application - the Tribunal has imposed a very reasonable condition. In fact, it has partly allowed the appeal and brought down the amount which is to be deposited - Held that:- hen the Tribunal has not acted arbitrarily or capriciously nor violated any provisions of law, we cannot entertain this writ petition - petition is dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1542 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. TTP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deputy Commissioner of Commericial Taxes (Audit) [2016 (12) TMI 425 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that The narrow parameters for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the appeal remedy available to the petitioner have to be very strictly construed - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1540 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - escaped turnover - penalty - Held that: - when independent proceedings are taken against an assessee by way of penalty as well as for escaped turnover, the contentions urged by the parties will have to be considered in its proper perspective. When the petitioner submits categorically that he will be able to explain the alleged escaped turnover by verification of the seized documents along with the books of accounts, necessarily an opportunity ought to have been granted in the matter. Failure to give such an opportunity definitely amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1539 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty - it was alleged that the assessee had filed untrue and incorrect returns for the months of June to March 2012 - Since it was found that the assessee had filed fallacious returns, a penalty of ₹ 33,51,750, being the double tax sought to be evaded, was also imposed under section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Held that: - the Tribunal has considered various assertions of the assessee and has found that the assessee having deliberately filed an untrue return showing the sales and purchases to be zero when, in fact, there was substantial turnover, he was, thereafter, not entitled to the benefit of section 23(6)(a) or section 22 of the Act - The Tribunal has concluded so for legally justifiable theorization since this was not a case where the assessee had omitted to file return but it was a case where the assessee, admittedly, filed an untrue and incorrect return.
The orders of penalty have been modified by the first appellate authority directing the assessing authority to assess the tax after verification of the documents and books of account maintained by the assessee. The particular circumstances of this case is that the assessee had maintained true and correct books of account, but had deliberately filed incorrect returns for the reason, according to him, that he wanted to delay the payment of tax. This attitude of the petitioner or any other assessee can never be countenanced and condoned and requires to be deprecated in the strongest manner as is available.
Penalty upheld - decided against assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1538 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Suo-moto revision of the assessments - Legal issue raised is that the notice dated 29.11.2005 was issued for revision more than 7 years after passing of the orders of assessment, which is beyond maximum period prescribed under the Act for any action - Held that: - the notice issued for revising the assessment after more than 7 years certainly deserves to be set aside on account of delay - The ground on which revisional power is sought to be exercised is irrelevant as the delay has not been explained - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1537 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rate of tax - mobile battery chargers (MBC) sold along with the mobile phones itself - KVAT Act - Held that: - the issue is decided in the case of Lava International Limited v. State of Karnataka [2016 (12) TMI 60 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the mobile battery chargers have been held to be only the accessories of mobile phones and they cannot be treated as part of the mobile phones itself. It will definitely attract a separate rate of tax as in the present case, it is rightly charged at 14.5% - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1536 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Inter-state sales - stock transfer - Section 18A of the CST Act, 1956 - Held that: - this Court requires the petitioner to approach the Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal - considering that the period of 15 days given by the Tax Board to pay the tax would come to an end today, this Court in the peculiar facts of this Court requires the respondents to refrain from making recovery of the tax amount for a period of another 15 days within which time, the petitioner may file appeal along with stay application before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1471 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - why the petitioner did not give objections to the pre-assessment notice dated 03.11.2015? - Why petitioners have not pursued the appellate remedies as against the impugned orders which have been passed on 08.12.2015? - Held that: - From the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions nor the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no proper explanation. This is sufficient to reject the writ petitions - petition dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1412 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - the contention of the petitioner is that full particulars were not furnished and that the system failed because of the connectivity problem and other issues. Therefore, the petitioner seeks one more opportunity to go before the Assessing Officer - Held that: - this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned orders in entirety, as the petitioner has been granted partial relief in the impugned orders. Therefore, the proper thing for the petitioner is to approach the respondent by way of a rectification petition under Section 84 of the State Act - the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the State Act.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1411 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision of assessment proceedings - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 - Held that: - the entire matter, as projected by the petitioner in the petition dated 26.10.2015, has not been considered - the respondent has referred only to C and F Forms, but has not referred to Form WW along with xerox copy of annual returns, export documents and other documents produced by the petitioner - the order has not even referred to the petition under Section 84 of the State Act, 2006 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Act, the matter requires consideration - respondent is directed to redo the assessment only in respect of the issues, which were not considered and pass a fresh order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1410 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - seeking respondent to pass orders on Form W applications dated 22.2.2014 and 25.3.2014 and issue a refund voucher for ₹ 1,64,39,081/- - Held that: - after the filing of this writ petition, the respondent passed an order proposing to adjust the said sum as against tax dues, which were the subject matters of challenge in W.P.Nos.30989 to 30992 of 2016 and they were disposed of by this Court by orders dated 9.11.2016 i.e. today - this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the respondent on Form W applications.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Registration of selling dealer - effect of cancellation of registration on purchasing dealer - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Suresh Trading Company [1996 (2) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that A purchasing dealer is entitled by law to rely upon the certificate of registration of the selling dealer and to act upon it. Whatever may be the effect of a retrospective cancellation upon the selling dealer, it can have no effect upon any person who has acted upon the strength of a registration certificate when the registration was current - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1321 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Taxability of submersible pumps upto 5 HP upto June 30, 2006 and thereafter - Classification of goods - classified under Entry 71A of Schedule 'C' or under Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' - Whether submersible pumps are covered under entry 71-A of Schedule C of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 amended on 20.6.2006 with effect from 01.07.2006 vide Notification No. S.O. 58/HA/6/2003/S.59/2006? - Held that: - agricultural pump sets were exempted from payment of tax in Haryana whereas other pump sets were taxed @12.5%. On the other hand, tax on such pumps in the neighbouring State was 4%. It was in the light of these facts that the amendment was carried out while adding Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C' taxing pump sets below 5 HP uniformly. It was for the reason that in agriculture normally the pump sets above 5 HP capacity are used - submersible pump sets used for agricultural purposes fall in Entry 1(D)(9) of Schedule 'B' upto June 30, 2006, hence tax free. From 1.7.2006 onwards pump sets below 5 HP capacity will fall in Entry 71-A in Schedule 'C', hence will be taxable irrespective of its end use.
Appeals disposed off.
............
|
