|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 81 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 365
Interest on delayed refunds - Section 54 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 - HELD THAT:- Without entering into any controversy with regard to payment of interest and without going into the issue whether Section 54 is applicable or not, the respondent No.2 are directed to pay interest on the amount of ₹ 2,98,800/- from the date of the decision of this Court in the Tax Appeal No.275 of 2009, i.e., 16th November, 2016. Interest shall be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from 16th November, 2016 till the date of actual payment.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 364
Demand for sales tax on sale of used cars and Trade Discount - stock transfer - wrong adjustment of Entry Tax - benefit of Notification No.79, CT & R (B2), dated 23.03.2007 - clarification issued by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling vide clarification dated 25.10.2016 - HELD THAT:- In the light of the clarification dated 25.10.2016 of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling issued under Section 48 A of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006, the issue relating to availability of benefit of G.O.Ms.No.79 CT & R (B2) Dept. dated 23.3.2007 as amended by the of G.O.Ms.No.78 CT & R (B2) Dept. dated 11.7.2011 would require reconsideration by the respondent.
The issue relating valuation is answered in favour of the Petitioner. Thus, the demand of tax on Trade Discount in the impugned orders are quashed to that extent - As far as the issue relating to rate of tax is concerned, the same is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh order in the light of the clarification issued by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling vide its order dated 25.10.2016.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (2) TMI 363
Validity of reassessment order - Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 9(2) of the CST Act of 1956 read with Section 36(1) of the said Act of 2003 - disallowance of input tax credit - levy of output tax - non-production of books of accounts - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the first page of the inteliigence report that the Intelligence Report relates to the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Secondly, the Intelligence Report is not an adjudication. The Intelligence Report is submitted by exercising the powers under Section 52 of the said Act of 2003 after directing production of the documents and after inspection of the documents. Section 52 of the said Act of 2003 does not contemplate any adjudication. Apart from the fact that the Intelligence Report relates to different periods, the Intelligence Report only records an opinion which is forwarded for taking action. Perhaps on the basis of the said report, the First Information Report may have been registered. The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for appellant is that the inspection report was not produced before the authority before passing the reassessment order.
The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that there is no final adjudication made on the issue whether the allegation made against the tax consultant is correct. Admittedly, the dispute is between the appellant and the tax consultant. Hence, there are no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 362
Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - inter-state sale - Form 38 had certain unfilled (blank) column - intent to evade tax or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case it is admitted fact that the respondent had duly applied for and obtained Form 38 for import of goods and the Column 2 to 6 of the said Form was left blank on account of negligence of the respondent. It is only on account of non filling of Column 6, penalty has been imposed upon the respondent. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that there was no intention to evade tax and the driver of the vehicle carrying the goods was carrying all the relevant documents including the bill/challan/bilty etc. from which the details of goods being carried on the vehicle could have been verified by the officer concerned and therefore there was no occasion for the assessing officer to pass penalty order, inasmuch as there was no intention on the part of the assesee to evade tax.
Non-filling up of column no. 2 to 6 i.e. not mentioning of bill / cash memo / chalan / invoice number may lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of goods the declaration form may be re-used for importing goods of same quantity, weight and value to evade payment of tax but it cannot be the sole ground to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008. Satisfaction has to be recorded after giving opportunity to the dealer / person and after considering all the relevant materials / evidences on record that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. The guilty mind is necessary to be established to impose penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Act, 2008.
In the present case also the vehicle was accompanied by Form 38 and all other documents were being carried along with other documents and only due to human error column would remain unfilled. It was the duty of the Officer managing the Check Post who after discovering that some column of Form 38 found unfilled should have filled the same himself in the light of Circular dated 03.02.2009 and should have allowed the vehicle to proceed alongwith the goods. It is undisputed that the goods transported were the same which were mentioned in the various documents (bill/builty/challan etc.) carried by the driver of the vehicle.
No question of law arises in this revision for consideration of this Court - Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 361
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, if the petitioner were to avail the remedy of appeal under the statute, it would have to make mandatory pre-deposit of 12.5% before the appellate Deputy Commissioner; and in the context of the claim of the petitioner that the addition of two zeros in the figures relating to transit sales in the CST return is a bonafide mistake, the situation does not warrant the petitioner having to comply with the said condition of pre-deposit. Therefore, we are inclined to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Error in the return - rectification of mistake - it is contended that VAT returns are not taken into consideration for finalization of the CST returns and that CST assessment under sub-Rule 5-A of 14 – A of CST (Telangana) Rules - HELD THAT:- From the above sub-rule it is clear that if a dealer who had filed a return discovers any error in the returns, he is entitled to file revised returns before an original assessment is made - The Supreme Court in PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLKATA - I [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] dealt with a similar situating akin to the present one, where a tax audit report filed along with the returns contained a computation error in its returns of income tax and the Supreme Court observed that human errors some time occur and merely because an Assessee has not been careful, it does not mean that Assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income.
Since the error committed by the petitioner became known to the petitioner at the time when the show cause notice dt.28.01.2019 was issued to him by the 1st respondent, and by that date there was no assessment on the original return filed by the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice on 20.03.2019 and the supporting material, and treat it as a revised return, since admittedly there is no proforma prescribed for filing of a revised CST return in the Act or the Rules framed there under.
The petitioner are permitted to file a revised CST return in Form CST-6 or through a representation, which shall be treated as revised return, within a period of four (04) weeks from today along with supporting documents - petition allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 305
Interpretation of statute - Base Production Volume and the Base Sales Volume as eligibility for claiming the sales tax - Interest Free Sales Tax Deferral Scheme - HELD THAT:- While no valid exception can be taken to the Clause 5.3 of the Eligibility Certificate issued in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 13.04.1994 read with original notification G.O.Ms.No.500 dated 14.05.1990, but they seems to have genuine confusion which is arising on the computation of the Base Production Volume/Base Sales Volume on availing taxable turnover in the present case. Whether the Base Sales Volume comprises only local sales taxable under the TNGST Act or would include the Global Sales made by the Assessee viz., Branch transfers, interstate sales and even Export Sales. Since there was no clarity with regard to the same, in the Eligibility Certificate issued to the petitioner, the Revenue has taken a different stand in the Notice dated 29.09.2009 and which resulted in this litigation. The clarity about the inclusion of the sales which are not taxable under the provisions of the TNGST Act to be taken as Base Sales Volume or not, it ought to have been discussed even before issuance of the Eligibility Certificate itself, so that any confusion with regard to availment of the benefit of deferral in terms of the EC could have been removed at that time itself.
We should relegate the Appellant/Assessee back to the stage where the confusion about determination of the Base Production Volume/Base Turnover arose and the respondents/SIPCOT as well as the Commercial Tax Department should take a joint decision in the matter with regard to the said terms definite in the Scheme itself after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant/Assessee.
The respondents/SIPCOT and Commercial Taxes Department are directed to constitute a Joint Committee of the two Senior Officials of the respective Departments to re-decide the issue of the Base Turnover in the light of the contentions raised by the Appellant/Assessee in this Court - appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 303
Imposition of penalty u/s 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - it is alleged that on inspection of the vehicle no papers were produced despite the fact that goods were being imported from outside the State and that the goods were destined for Lucknow were found to be on a different location from the route from Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) to Lucknow (U.P.) - HELD THAT:- There is always apprehension that in absence of relevant documents the goods can be sold to unregistered dealers and thereby transaction would not be recorded in the books of account and the tax due would also be evaded. As per provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act, 2008, provides for penalty to stem the evasion of tax and to see that all the transactions are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee which can subsequently be looked into by the taxing authorities.
In the present case, the Tribunal being last fact finding authority has considered the submissions made by the revisionist as well the documents produced before them. The Tribunal after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case has given cogent reasons for not accepting the version of the revisionist.
The Tribunal has rejected the revision after duly considering all the relevant facts and pleas raised by the assessee. No ground exist for interference with the order of the Tribunal and no question of law arises for determination by this Court - Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 301
Attachment of Bank Accounts - appeal and stay petition for extention were pending- whether the respondent no.4 could be said to be justified in ordering attachment of the bank accounts of the writ-applicant and in directing the respondent no.5 bank to withdraw the amount and credit the same in the government treasury?
HELD THAT:- We fail to understand that although this Court clarified vide order dated 01.05.2019 that the pendency of this petition shall not preclude the appellate authority from deciding the application for extension of stay made by the writ-applicant, yet why no such order has been passed till this date. In fact, by this period of time, the appeal itself could have been heard and disposed of - It is not in dispute that the stay order is of the year 2013. It was extended last up to June 2017. Thereafter, there does not seem to be any extension.
The action on the part of the respondent no.4 in attaching the bank accounts of the writ-applicant pending the appeals before the appellate authority is not justified. The Department has a bank guarantee as on date of ₹ 1 crore - the appellate authority should proceed immediately with the hearing of the appeals with an understanding that till the final disposal of the appeals, there shall be no coercive recovery of the amount demanded.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 298
Restoration of lump sum cancellation order - permission of composition of tax - Section 14D read with Rule 28(C)(7) of Gujarat VAT Act - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion by quashing and setting aside the order of cancellation of the permission of composition of tax and restoring the matter to the Cancelling Officer with a liberty to take appropriate decision as per law regarding permission for composition after the appellant authority finally decide the liability and the case of the assement for the year 2016-2017-2018 under the VAT Act, 2003.
No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 297
Withholding the refund of excess amount - time limitation for completion of assessment is expired - Section 39 of the VAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any assessment for the year 2011-2012 and more particularly, when the time period for completion of assessment is over as prescribed under the provisions of Section 34(9) and 34(10) of the Act, 2003, the respondents are not entitled to withhold the refund.
Reliance placed by the respondents on subsection (8A) of Section 34 is also misplaced in the facts of the case as sub-section 8A of section 34 is applicable only when, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the tax has been evaded etc.
In the facts of the case, no notice has been issued till date by the respondent authority invoking provisions of Section 8(A)(a) of Section 34 of the VAT Act, 2003 - Therefore, in contemplation of invoking such provision for assessment without there being any satisfaction of the prescribed authority that the tax has been evaded etc. by the petitioner, the refund cannot be withheld.
The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner amount of ₹ 63,843/- together with 6% interest forthwith and latest by 31st January 2020 - petition allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 296
Input tax credit - levy of purchase tax - Section 12(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - HELD THAT:- Value Added Tax (tax) is payable on the sale of goods under Section 3 of the Act. Section 12(1) of the Act is an exception. As per Section 12(1) of the Act purchase tax is payable by a recipient-dealer who in the course of his business, purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to purchase tax under the Act) under the circumstances prescribed therein. This provision is subject to the charging provisions of section 3(1) of the Act - These two taxes are available as an input tax credit under Section 19 and Section 12(2) of the Act respectively. As per section 12(2) of the Act, such dealer is also entitled to input tax credit (ITC) on the tax paid on the goods specified in the 1st schedule. In other words, purchase tax payable under section 12(1) of the Act is available as an input tax credit. This provision is also exception to Section 19 of the Act.
Input tax credit that is made available under Section 12(2) and under Section 19 of the Act can be adjusted under Section 3(3) of the said Act. As per Section 3(3) of the Act, tax payable under Section 3(2) by a registered dealer is to be reduced in the manner prescribed to the extent of tax paid on the purchase of goods specified in Part B or Part C of the 1st schedule, inside the State, to the registered dealer, who sold the goods to him - there is no scope for ambiguity. Input tax credit can be adjusted only for payment of tax under Section 3(2) and not under Section 12(1) of the Act. Purchase tax payable under Section 12(1) of the Act has to be paid in cash. Such purchase tax can be adjusted on the output tax in terms of section 3(3) of the Act.
The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is sustainable - the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 178
Restoration of assessment order - rejection of book-version and determining taxable turnover of imported goods - rejection of book version of the revisionist on the basis of survey conducted at the premises of another dealer - opportunity of cross-examination not provided - U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - whether the Tribunal has rightly up held the order of imposition of tax which was based on the survey made of the premises of M/s Gomti Interiors wherein certain loose papers were found which were estimates prepared by the revisionist while dispatching the goods to the purchaser?
HELD THAT:- While rejecting the books of account, it has no where stated by any of the taxing authority below that it was in the course of business that estimates were sent alongwith the goods to the purchaser and bill was submitted only subsequently which included only the goods actually supplied to the purchaser excluding the goods which were returned by the purchaser. The Revenue has not disputed this fact before any of the authorities below - Second aspect which needs consideration is as to whether in supplying the goods the revisionist was engaged in purchases from outside the State for which declaration and Form is required to be obtained from the respondent. It is admitted case that the revisionist had not obtained any goods from outside the State and also that no goods were purchased from the unregistered dealers, was exempted from tax.
In the light of provisions of contained in Section 3A of the Act, 1948, the revisionist had infact declared goods purchased by him from the registered dealers and the First Appellate Authority has also considered the fact that in subsequent years also no tax has been imposed on the revisionist.
The Tribunal has failed to discharge its duty while accepting the plea of the Revenue. The finding of fact recorded by the first Appellate Authority that there was no material with the Revenue to conclude that the goods were either imported from outside the State or purchased from unregistered dealers, cannot be set aside lightly on the basis of apprehension expressed by the Revenue and therefore in the peculiar facts of the case the questions are decided in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.
Revision allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 127
Levy of CST - HSD - issuance of Form C - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, when the authority itself has granted amendment by adding HSD in the CST as well as in the VAT registration of the writ applicant No.1 for the purpose of using the same in the mining & electricity generation activity of the writ applicant No.1-Company, the respondent No.2 could not have declined to grant permission to issue “C” Form under the provisions of the CST Act.
Issue decided in the case of GAURAV CONTRACTS COMPANY VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2019 (6) TMI 802 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that there being no power vested in the authority to review its order under section 7 of the CST Act or to keep such order in abeyance, the stand of the second respondent in the impugned letters dated 27.2.2019 informing the petitioners that their on-line applications had been approved through oversight and that High Speed Diesel would be included in CST commodity after obtaining guidance of the higher authority cannot be countenanced even for a moment.
Application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 126
Principles of natural justice - provisional attachment of bank accounts - Gujarat VAT Act - HELD THAT:- It appears that on 01.09.2016, the business premises of the writ-applicant was searched. The authority concerned proceeded to pass an order of provisional attachment of the three bank accounts - It appears that simultaneously the order of provisional attachment of the residential premises of the writ-applicant also came to be passed. Thus, the writ-applicant is aggrieved by such action on the part of the respondent authorities.
The life of the order of provisional attachment is one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the VAT Act, 2003 - In such circumstances, the three bank accounts as well as the residential house cannot be said to be in any sort of attachment. This fact should be brought to the notice of the three banks.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 125
Levy of sales tax - inter-state sales or not - Stock Transfer/Branch Transfer made by the Assessee during the relevant period - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. ADVANCE PAINTS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ADDL. BENCH) [2019 (12) TMI 540 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that merely on the assumption or presumption of any such kind of pre-existing contract, the Assessing Authority could not have imposed the tax under the provision of Central Sales Tax Act. Since necessary documents and evidence were already furnished before the Assessing Authority himself, furnishing of the same again before the Appellate Authorities was not at all called for. And therefore, on this premise, the Appellate Authority should not have confirmed the finding of the Assessing Authority that the Assessee is liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.
There are no merit in the petition - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 124
Levy of sales tax - sale of medicines - defence given by the revisionist was that he is not selling medicines from the said dispensary, but the said medicines, surgical equipments bandages etc. are used for inhouse patients and therefore there being no element of “Sale” of the medicines - HELD THAT:- On a categorical finding of fact have been recorded, from whereby it is found that they have held that the medicines from the medical store were actually being sold by the revisionist for which no sales tax has been deposited to the department, thereby there is clear evasion of tax for which the revisionist has rightly been put to tax and penalty thereon.
Revision dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 123
Recovery of the dues of the company from the Director - outstanding dues of Sales Tax - HELD THAT:- Under Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act burden is placed upon a director to show that non-recovery cannot be attributed to him for his gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty. The notices state that the dues of the company have remained unpaid. The Petitioner is not in a position to controvert this assertion as according to the Petitioner, he was not aware of the position after he ceased to be the director. Therefore, we have to go by the case of the Respondents that the dues of the private limited company regarding sales tax have remained unpaid. Whether the non-recovery can be attributed to the Petitioner will be determined in the enquiry which the Respondents have stated will complete within three months.
The Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is no warrant to lift the embargo placed by the letter dated 15.11.2018 regarding non-issuance of No Objection Certificate - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 120
Levy of Sales Tax - inter-state transfer or not - Branch/Stock/Consignment transfer of goods - CST Act - HELD THAT:- The learned Tribunal erred in reversing the cogent findings of the First Appellate Authority merely because the agent sold the goods in question immediately after the receipt of the goods from the Principal.
This court explained the position and pre-requisites of an inter state sales in the case of M/S. ADVANCE PAINTS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ADDL. BENCH) [2019 (12) TMI 540 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that there being no power vested in the authority to review its order under section 7 of the CST Act or to keep such order in abeyance, the stand of the second respondent in the impugned letters dated 27.2.2019 informing the petitioners that their on-line applications had been approved through oversight and that High Speed Diesel would be included in CST commodity after obtaining guidance of the higher authority cannot be countenanced even for a moment.
The present writ petitions filed by the Assessee deserve to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal deserves to be set aside - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2020 (2) TMI 118
Levy of Purchase tax - Cotton Kappas - the contention of the Petitioner is that Purchase Tax under Section 12 (1) (a) will apply only on purchase from the registered dealer who fails to pay tax and not on purchase of goods from unregistered dealers - HELD THAT:- The arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no purchase tax is payable under Section 12 (1) of the Act appears to be incorrect in as much as the tax is payable on such purchase. Section 12 (1) is an exception to Section 3 of the Act. Further, a special dispensation has been provided to avail credit of such Tax as Input Tax Credit and to utilise the same under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Thus, the Petitioner was liable to pay tax.
The demand for levy of purchase tax in the impugned order is upheld - The Petitioner may however proceed to avail credit of such Tax under the Provisions of Section 12 (2) of the TNVAT, 2006 and utilize the same under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 if there are no other adjustment of Tax to be made under the TNVAT act, 2006 - petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 117
Levy of works contract tax - requirement of obtaining Exemption Certificate from the sales tax authority as applicable in case works contract tax - HELD THAT:- The activity undertaken by the Petitioner attracts central sales tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The definition of the expression “sale” in 2 (g) includes “works contract”. Such sale attract central sales tax under the provisions of the aforesaid Act alone.
There is no mechanism provided for any exemption or for payment of such tax liability on reverse charge basis by the recipient under the scheme of the aforesaid Act. Since the work order was placed on the Petitioner’s Head Office by the Fourth Respondent, it attracts tax under the provisions of the said Act only. Therefore, tax if any is payable by the Petitioner’s Head Office at Hyderabad alone. The work order is outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 unless supply of goods were made from Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the Third Respondent was justified in refusing to grant certificate to the Petitioner.
Fourth Respondent was also not obliged to deduct tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and remit the same - petition disposed off.
|
