|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 65 of 65 Records
-
2021 (2) TMI 149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condition of deposit of amount for grant of stay - Whether the discretion used by the Tribunal in placing condition of deposit of amount for grant of stay was perverse considering the order passed by the Tribunal in identical facts and circumstances in VAT Second Appeal granting complete stay without deposit?
HELD THAT:- Normally, we would not interfere with the use of discretion by the Tribunal and the amount also does not prima facie appear to us as an unreasonable condition, however, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that in identical set of facts and arguments the discretion has been used differently will have to be taken note of - However, it appears that the Appellant had not placed the order dated 7 March 2017 passed in VAT Second Appeal Nos.43 to 46 of 2017 before the Tribunal when the impugned order in the present appeal was passed. Therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider its earlier use of discretion in the alleged identical set of facts. The appropriate course of action would be set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, restore the appeal filed by the Appellant, permit the Appellant to place on record the order dated 7 March 2017 passed in VAT Second Appeal Nos.43 to 46 of 2017 so that the Tribunal has the benefit of the said order, and a fresh decision can be taken.
The appeal is allowed
-
2021 (2) TMI 148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining C-Form - respondent fairly submits that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Dhandapani Cement Private Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, [2019 (2) TMI 1850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein on identical issue it was held that Petitioner in these Writ Petitions has stated on affidavit that it is unable to download the ‘C’ forms from the websites as the same stand blocked from use. Upon enquiry with the Assessing Authorities, they have been informed that the benefit of the decision in M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) [2018 (10) TMI 1529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Ltd can be extended only to those dealers in that are party to the decision. This stand is unacceptable in so far as the decision of this Court as well as other High Courts, one of which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, are decisions in rem, applicable to all dealers that seek benefit thereunder, of course, in accordance with law.
HELD THAT:- The State has, after the date of the above order, filed a Writ Appeal challenging the decision in the case of Ramco Cements that has been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) VERSUS THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CS) (SYSTEMS) VERSUS SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED [2020 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and it was held that Appellant State and the Revenue Authorities are directed not to restrict the use of 'C' Forms for the inter-State purchases of six commodities by the Respondent/Assessees and other registered Dealers at concessional rate of tax and they are further directed to permit Online downloading of such Declaration in 'C' Forms to such Dealers.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 115 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund of tax paid on purchase of inputs - inputs disallowed included purchase of food and beverages, housekeeping and office maintenance, printing and stationery, maintenance of photocopying machine, sports goods and events, car lease etc. - tax periods May 2012 to December 2012 - HELD THAT:- The sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 64(1) of the Act is that the Commissioner has to form an opinion that the order passed by any officer subordinate to him is erroneous or is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, before exercising the powers under Section 64 of the Act, the Commissioner has to form an opinion that the order passed by any subordinate officer is either erroneous or is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may be seen - The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in its order dated 15.07.2014, has considered the question whether the disallowance of income tax on food items, housekeeping and office maintenance, printing and stationery, maintenance of photocopying machine, sports goods and events, car lease rentals is proper. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has taken note of Section 20(2) of the Act and has held that SEZ developer is eligible for input tax paid and does not stipulate any condition. It has further been held that it is not necessary that SEZ unit should be engaged in the activity of involving goods as output. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has also taken note of Rule 130(A) of the Rules and has held that the aforesaid provision makes a SEZ unit or SEZ developer entitled to claim refund of input tax under Section 20(2) of the Act on the purchases made. It has also been held that no condition has been specified under Section 20(2) of the Act to claim refund.
The appellant has satisfied the conditions mentioned in Rule 130(a)(1)(b) of the Rules. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has also taken note of the definition of input in Section 2(19) of the Act and it has been held that the input means any goods including capital goods purchased by a dealer in the course of his business for re-sale or for use in the manufacture or processing or packing or sorting of other goods or any other use in the business. It has also been held that use of expression 'any other use in business' in the definition of input, has wider meaning and certainly includes any purchases made which are for any other uses in the business carried out by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has been held entitled to claim refund of input tax paid on purchase of ₹ 7,06,435/-. In the result, the appeal has been allowed.
The order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot be said to be erroneous. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has proceeded on the assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and processing of goods which is not prescribed under the law. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, there was no justification on the part of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in invoking the power under Section 64(1) of the Act - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (2) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT
Levy of Entry Tax - Respondent was a Casual Trader - time limitation for passing an Assessment Order - HELD THAT:- Under Section 2(ccc) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 “Casual Trader” means a person who has, whether as principal, agent or in any capacity, occasional transaction of business nature involving the buying, selling, supply or distribution of such goods as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration - Sections 10A and 10B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act pertain to assessment and the time limit for assessment in the case of a Casual Trader. Section 10A(1) read with Section 10A(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 provides that every “Casual Trader”, on completion of a transaction of sale or purchase, for which he is liable to pay tax, shall make a report to the Assessing Officer or to the Officer-in-charge of a Check Post, of the sale or purchase price, tax payable thereon, etc. and deposit the tax with such officer. Subsection (3) of Section 10 enables the Assessing Officer to assess the tax payable by a “Casual Trader” on his failure to make a report.
In the case of a “Casual Trader”, the time limit for assessment is one year from the date of making the report, and if no report is made, within two years from the date of the transaction. The date of transaction in this case is 26.12.2009. The question is whether assessment was barred upon expiry of two years from the date of transaction, and/or in other words after 25/26.12.2011 - The Appellate Authority, the Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court have concurred in arriving at the finding that the assessment of the Respondent was barred by limitation as the Respondent was a “Casual Trader”. A perusal of the definition of “Casual Trader” makes it amply clear that a person with occasional transactions of buying/selling are to be treated as casual traders, for whom a shorter time limit for assessment has been imposed under Section 10B(iii) read with Section 10A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954. The Legislature could not, possibly, have intended that a person making 2 or 3 transactions should be treated as a “Casual Trader”, but a person making only one transaction should be treated at par with regular traders.
It is well settled that in construing a statutory provision, words in the singular are to include the plural and vice versa, unless repugnant to the context in which the expression has been used, as provided in Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and provisions identical thereto in State enactments pertaining to General Clauses.
SLP dismissed.
-
2021 (2) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Issuance of demand notice - attachment of bank account of the assessee in a case in which the assessee has filed an appeal together with a stay application against an order of assessment - Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- It appears that against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, the writ applicant has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority.
Let Notice for final disposal be issued to the respondents, returnable on 13.01.2021. Having regard to the settled position of law, the respondents would be well advised if they deem fit to revoke the attachment in the meantime. On the returnable date, notify the matter on top of the Board. It is clarified that no amount shall be appropriated from the current bank account of the writ applicant to the State Treasury.
|
