|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1180 Records
-
2016 (11) TMI 1320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - registration of sellers cancelled - selling dealer not paid taxes - Form-W - whether the purchasing dealers can be held liable for non-payment of tax by the selling dealers on account of retrospective cancellation of their registration certificates? - Held that: - this is no longer res intergra as it has been settled by this Court in several decisions. The recent decision on the point is in JINSASAN DISTRIBUTORS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (CT), CHINTADRIPET ASSESSMENT CIRCLE,CHENNAI [2013 (4) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] relied upon, wherein it was held that Retrospective cancellation of the registration certificate of the selling dealer can have no effect on the person who acted upon the strength of the registration certificate when it was in force.
Selling dealer has not paid taxes - Held that: - This issue was considered by this Court in the case of SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VADAPALANI-I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Sub-section (16) of Section 19 states that the input tax credit availed is provisional. It, however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input tax credit availed on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of input tax credit by the dealer.
Belated submission of Form-W - Held that: - this Court has taken into consideration the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in Circular No.22/2014 dated 12.05.2014, that even though Statutory Forms such as Form-W are submitted belatedly, that by itself will not be the reason to reject the same. Therefore, to that extent, the respondent was not justified in outrightly rejecting the Form-W, belatedly submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent with a direction to consider Form-W.
Petition partly allowed - matter on remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1319 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether deduction will be allowed by the assessee through credit note - Rule 31 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules - Held that: - there is no discussion by the Tribunal on the aspect as to whether the burden is ever discharged by contemporaneous record or otherwise through satisfactory material that there was a policy by the manufacturer of giving discount at the end of the month if one reaches to a particular level - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1318 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - when similar view has already been taken by this Court on identical facts, there is no reason to deviate with the judgment rendered in CTO Vs. M/s. Durgeshwari Food Limited, Shri Ganganagar [2011 (12) TMI 654 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - the revision petition stands dismissed in the light of judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Durgeshwari Food Limited, Sri Gangangar , with a rider that in case the judgment by Hon'ble Apex Court is decided in favour of the assessee in that case then this revision petition will be governed by the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP in the case of Durgeshwari Food Limited, Shri Ganganagar.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1317 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of AO - registration of the respondent assessee was granted by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle A, Kota, whereas the penalty was imposed u/s 10A of the Act by Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Rajasthan, Jaipur - Held that: - A bare perusal of the section 10A clearly postulates and envisages that the same authority gets power to impose or not to impose penalty who has initially registered an assessee.
Since the very imposition of penalty has been held to be improper, therefore, the issue of interest which has been raised by the Revenue, automatically goes away - petition dismissed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1316 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Entitlement to partial rebate - Section 17 of KVAT Act - Section 17 of KVAT Act states that for partial rebate two conditions should be satisfied, one is that there should be sales of taxable goods and the second is that the dealer should also be making sales of exempted goods under Section 5 of the KVAT Act - As per the petitioner they are not dealing in sales of any exempted goods covered by Section 5 and therefore, Section 17 is wrongly made applicable - Whether the partial rebate scheme under Section 17 read with Rule 131 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be made applicable to the case of the petitioner or not?
Held that: - The provisions of Section 17 by title itself shows that it is in order to permit partial rebate for input tax credit. Sub-clause(1) of Section 17 provides that one of the requirement is if the dealer makes sale of taxable goods and exempted goods under Section 5. Since as per the petitioner they are not dealing in sales of exempted goods, it can be said that the petitioners are not covered by the provisions of sub-clause(1).
However, the language of sub-clause(2) is different - When the petitioner is selling taxable goods and also despatches taxable goods outside the State otherwise than by way of sale and the Tribunal has found that Section 17(2)-partial rebate is available, no error can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal.
It is not possible to accept the contention that Section 17(2) would not be applicable to a dealer who sells taxable goods and despatches goods outside the State otherwise than by way of sale - it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in not considering any substantial question of law more particularly for Section 17 and Rule 131 of the Rules.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1265 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit - period of limitation - Held that: - It is not in dispute that the appeals before the learned Tribunal were against the order passed by the first Appellate Authority preferred by the assessee dismissing the same on nondeposit of the amount of predeposit. Therefore, as such the learned Tribunal was required to consider the issue with respect to the predeposit only and whether the learned first Appellate Authority is justified in dismissing the appeals on the ground of nondeposit of predeposit or not Despite the aforesaid pointed out, the learned Tribunal has entered into the merits of the original assessment order and by impugned common judgment and order the learned Tribunal has set aside the original assessment orders - the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted back to the learned Tribunal to consider the appeals only with respect to the issue of nondeposit of the predeposit and/or the orders passed by the first Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals on the ground of nondeposit of predeposit - appeal disposed off by way of remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1264 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of Single Judge Bench to reduce quantum of penalty - tax evasion - whether respondent was able to establish that his conduct was not fraudulent and that his omissions are not so grave so as to attract the maximum penalty, then it would be permissible - Held that: - The fact that the learned single Judge has only reduced the penalty and did not exonerate the respondent from it completely, makes us to conclude that the learned single Judge found the respondent to have acted in culpability and that his action in attempting to prove a contract with Mr.Kumar by creating a document in a stamp paper subsequent to the interception has not been fully proved. It is, therefore, that the levy of penalty was upheld since in normal circumstances, if there was no culpability on the part of the respondent, no penalty ought to have been imposed.
We have also examined all the documents on record and the statements given by the respondent and Mr.Kumar before the assessing authority. We see that the case of the respondent that he brought the vehicle to Kerala for executing a work under a contract/agreement with Mr.Kumar appears to be probable. However, his conduct in creating a document, in support of his contention, on a stamp paper that was purchased subsequent to the interception would not give the benefit of exculpation. In such view of the matter, it is, therefore, necessary that he be mulcted with penalty, since he was only enjoying the benefit of doubt based on attendant circumstances. We see that it is in such circumstances the learned single Judge has also upheld the order of penalty, but reduced it to ₹ 1,00,000/- based on the reasons and rationale recorded in the judgment, which, we are of the view, are totally justifiable and with sufficient reason and cause.
Appeal dismissed - decided against the revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1263 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Release of attached warehoused goods - Castor Seeds - upon raiding such godown, it was found that the petitioner has stored the said goods without proper documentation with an intention to evade payment of duty - Held that: - the petitioner's estimated tax, interest and penalty liability works out to ₹ 1,54,36,314/. This takes into account maximum imposable penalty at one and a half times the tax. So far assessment is not yet made, the final liability could be ascertained. In the meantime, if the petitioner secures the full amount, the interest of the Revenue would be sufficiently safeguarded. Counsel for the petitioner also offered to give unconditional bank guarantee of ₹ 1,55,00,000/to the department. In our opinion, subject to such bank guarantee being furnished, the goods could be released.
The petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner gives the bank guarantee from a scheduled bank to the department of sum of ₹ 1.55 crores to be recovered by the department with the tax when interest and penalty liabilities are crystallized, the goods lying in the warehouse of M/s Edelweiss Integrated Commodity Management Limited shall be released - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1262 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of tax - Eraser, Scale and Glass Marking Pencils - stationary items - Held that: - the controversy relating to the similar items being sold by the respondent-assessee came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur Vs. M/s Camlin Limited & anr. [2015 (4) TMI 250 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] where it was held that these are essentially stationary items and would fall in the exempt category.
Petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1261 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Interpretation of Notification dt 12.7.2004 - turnover tax - composition scheme - turnover tax is payable on the basis of annual turnover and not on the basis of quarterly turnover as laid down in sec.13A of the Act - Held that: - a bare perusal of section 13A itself makes it explicitly clear when it mentions "whose total turnover in a year exceeds 3 lac rupees" should mean that it has to be computed on the basis of annual turnover and not on the basis of proportionate or part of the turnover or quarterly. Admittedly, Notification dt 12.7.2004 with regard to the assessment of the turnover tax and the exemption fee in lieu of turnover tax had been rescinded, therefore, assessment of the annual turnover or the exemption fee on any part of the same of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05, could not be made applicable - The Tax Board, in my considered opinion has correctly interpreted the Notifications and the view which has been taken by the Tax Board appears to be just and proper and is not required to be interpreted differently than what has been expressed by the Tax Board and taking into consideration the aforesaid view of the Tax Board, which I do concur, in my view it being a finding of fact based on evidence, no question of law arises out of the order of Tax Board. I find no perversity or illegality in the order of Tax Board so as to call for interference of this court - petition dismissed - decided against the revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1199 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of authority - period of limitation - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Dhanani Imp. Exp. Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Gujarat and another [2016 (7) TMI 1150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that When the petitioner's assessment thus became final and by efflux of time, even exercise of powers by the Commissioner under section 35(1) became barred by limitation, subsection (8A) was not even yet introduced in the statute book. We have serious doubt whether this provision could be applied to the periods prior to the date when the provision was enacted. However, at any rate, to apply to such a situation where the original assessment and any scope by the Commissioner to revise the tax in terms of subsection (1) of section 35 has long pass, been barred by limitation, would expose the provision to vulnerability on the ground of virus - Applying the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajkot can be said to be without jurisdiction inasmuch as the assessment has been made for the period between 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 beyond the period of limitation, which is 4 years as prescribed under Section 34 (9) of the Act.
The impugned assessment order dated 10th August, 2016 passed in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (8A) of Section 34 of the VAT Act is hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner-assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1198 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Taxability - separate rate of tax on the ‘Mobile Battery Chargers’ (MBC) sold along with the Mobile phones itself - KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of case of State of Punjab and others –versus- Nokia India Private Limited [2014 (12) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the Mobile Battery Chargers (MBC), cannot be treated as part of the Mobile Phones itself and they are mere accessories of the Mobile Phone and are to be taxed separately irrespective of their packing in the common package with Mobile phones - The said binding precedent from the Apex Court is binding on all Courts/authorities in the Country. It is not based only on particular entry for tax rate under any particular State. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this contention of the assessee. The other issues of assessment have already been left open to be raised before the appellate authorities under the Act, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the impugned assessment orders and therefore they have been left free to agitate those points before such appellate authorities - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1197 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of ex parte assessment order - revision application - on account of the fact that inspite of notice, the assessee petitioner herein did not appear on 28/07/15, 16/09/15 and 17/12/15 and by giving a justification for nonappearance, the writ petition has been filed seeking review of the order and its setting aside i.e. Annexure P-1 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the M. P. V.A.T. Act - Held that: - against the order of assessment, a remedy of appeal and second appeal is available. Petitioner should take recourse to the said remedy and the grounds raised in this writ petition are left open to be considered and decided by the appellate authority on an appeal being filed along with an appropriate application for condonation of delay - petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1196 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/s 78 (5) of the Act - Held that: - merits of the case not considered and decision reached, which is not permissible - penalty can be levied on the owner as well.
Penalty imposed by AO is upheld - decided against Assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1195 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/s 76(6) of the Act - declaration form VAT 47 - declaration not fully filled - punching of form - Held that: - Even the subsequent declaration form, though produced by the assessee, in my view can be said to be incomplete, defective or not duly filled in, particularly taking into consideration the additional mandate of law of punching the declaration form, though the learned counsel contended that it is technical error, but in my view it cannot be said to be mere technicality particularly when it is an additional feature introduced by the Government to avoid misuse or reuse of declaration forms and to avoid manipulations by the assessees. To say that it is a technical error, in my view, is not proper. Once the apex court says that declaration form should be complete in all respect, then punching having been introduced as one of the additional feature later, is required to be taken into consideration. What is to be punched is date, month of use and value, which neither the earlier Form nor the new Form was punched and, therefore, in my view the subsequent declaration form can also be said to be incomplete or not duly filled in and is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of law.
The judgment of Guljag Industries [2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court] of which relevant paras have been reproduced hereinbefore, is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and when the additional feature of punching which has been noticed hereinbefore, the declaration form can be said to be deficient in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Guljag Industries.
The declaration form has to be complete in all respect and finding the subsequent form even incomplete in respect of material particulars and punching, the order of Tax Board is reversed and that of the AO as well as Dy. Com. (Appeals), are upheld - petition succeeds - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1194 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Demand - the assessee was allowed exemption to the extent of the business carried on as per the registration with the KVIC. However, it was noticed that in the garb of the said certificate, the assessee also ventured in stone business which was not as per registration - Held that: - Both the appellate authorities also took into consideration the notification of the Commissioner dt.26/05/1995 which clarified that there shall be no sales tax where such entities are registered with the KVIC and therefore, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that it was competent to have advantage granted by the KVIC to promote such entities and accordingly, both the appellate authorities taking into consideration the principles of promissory estoppel allowed the same. The Tax Authorities ought to allow benefits covered by such registration/norms and should not create such technicalities in rejecting the benefits - In so far as the sale through 'C Form' is concerned, both the appellate authorities have also expressed that if the assessee produced the necessary 'C Form' before the AO within the stipulated period, then the claim may be reconsidered by the AO and in my view, there is nothing adverse in it because the principles of natural justice demand that opportunity was to be allowed and it has been allowed and it was for the AO to take a decision after 'C Form' is filed.
Both the appellate authorities have come to a finding of fact based on the notification and circulars and therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference by this Court, particularly when it has been decided on a finding of fact based on the material available on record - revision petition dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1193 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Liability of VAT - entry tax - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the fact remains that the liability of more than ₹ 14 Crores has been imposed upon the petitioner and the orders have been passed ex parte and, therefore, interest of justice requires that at lease one opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to submit their account books and other documents to give their say in the matter and then only the assessment should be finalized - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1192 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods - perishable goods - inspite of deposit of penalty u/s 55 (6)(ea) of 'the Act, the goods not released - Held that: - this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for grant of interim relief as the petitioner has already paid the penalty imposed against him - Resultantly, the respondents are directed to release the goods seized from the petitioner within a week from today. It is also made clear that the Department shall proceed with the assessment in accordance with the provisions of law - petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1188 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - the Electronic KK Forms and other documents produced by the petitioner / Transporter, shows that the dealer in West Bengal, has raised a Sale Invoice towards the sale of goods to the dealer in Bangalore and that the import was made at the Chennai Port ended / terminated in the State of Tamil Nadu and the movement of goods commenced / originated from the State of Tamil Nadu - state who can levy the tax - genuineness of transactions - Held that: - Considering the fact that even in the impugned detention notice, the respondent does not disbelieve that the movement of goods commenced / originated from the State of Tamil Nadu, thereby showing that the respondent is aware of the fact that the goods have moved from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Karnataka, this Court is of the view that an appropriate condition can be imposed to enable the petitioner to get release of the goods, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all the issues before the concerned Joint Commissioner - the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the petitioner to remit a sum of ₹ 50,000/- [Rupees fifty thousand only] towards the pending liability and if the same is remitted, the respondent shall forthwith release the goods along with the vehicle and the petitioner is given two weeks time to file a revision before the Joint Commissioner concerned challenging the compounding notice and the payment made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court, will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Revisional Authority.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1184 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Review of the order dated 29.04.2016 - petitioner has filed the petition seeking direction against the revisional authority to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 71(2) of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and rectify the revision order in terms of the petitioner's application - scope of review - Held that: - the scope of review is very limited. Review is not as same as appeal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he has a remedy to challenge the same by way of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The scope of review comes from Section 114 and Order 47 Rule of the CPC - we do not find any merit in the review petition to allow - review petition dismissed.
............
|
