|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 27237 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 225
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for condoning the delay or not - HELD THAT:- The High Court has not been convinced by the reasons stated for seeking condonation of delay and hence has dismissed the appeals on that ground.
The High Court has also considered the case of the appellants on merits and has simply extracted the findings of the Tribunal and has observed that there was no illegality or perversity in the said findings. Without going into the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1)(i) of Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (HSEZ Act) and particularly after the amendment made to the said provision.
These petitions disposed off by observing that the High Court was right in dismissing the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals and consequently the appeals on that ground only.
-
2024 (3) TMI 224
Validity of orders of assessments under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 - challenge on the premise that the same has been completed without even issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner contrary to Section 24 of the Act which provides that no assessment shall be made without the grant of reasonable opportunity and thus a nullity - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is conscious of the fact that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be entertained normally if statutory remedy is available. However, existence of alternate remedy is not an embargo or an absolute bar to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but a self-imposed restriction and the following circumstances viz., violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record are some of the exceptions carved out to the rule of alternate remedy for exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders are made in violation of principles of natural justice and thus falls within the exceptions carved out to the rule of alternate remedy for entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While this Court is conscious of the fact that though law of limitation does not strictly apply to the writ petitioner, nevertheless Courts would be loathe in permitting writ petitions after inordinate and unexplained delay or laches. Though the same by itself may not be an absolute impediment to exercise judicial discretion and rendering of substantial Justice. From a reading of the extract from the affidavit filed by the petitioner this Court is satisfied with the explanation for the delay in approaching this Court. Importantly, the orders having been made in complete disregard to the mandate contained in Section 24 of the Act, the impugned orders of assessment are a nullity and thus liable to be set aside. The petitioner would treat the impugned orders of assessment as show cause notice and submit its objections within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Respondents shall proceed to complete the assessment within a further period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of objections.
In the event the petitioner fails to submit its objections within the period stipulated herein i.e., 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the orders of assessment will stand restored and it shall be open to the Respondents to proceed in accordance with law.
The writ petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 223
Rectification of error - assessments deemed to have been completed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as amended vide Act No.23 of 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012 - It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned notices issued seeking to revise the assessment on 04.11.2020 for the respective assessment years were time-barred.
HELD THAT:- Since the monthly returns filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 were incorrect, the respondent was entitled to pass orders dated 24.12.2020 to the best of his judgement after the completion of the year in terms of Section 22 (4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - There is no limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The language adopted in Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 merely indicates that the assessment order has to be passed after the completion of that year. It would imply that such assessment orders have to be passed within the reasonable period.
Assessment orders cannot be passed long after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, had the petitioner filed proper monthly returns in time with all the particulars as was required for completing the assessment.
The Impugned Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2020 and Impugned Notices dated 20.12.2021 for Assessment Year 2011-2012 and for Assessment Year 2012-2013 challenged in W.P.No.513 of 2022 and W.P.No. 516 of 2022 are liable to be quashed. There is no merits in challenge to Assessment Orders dated 24.12.2020 and Impugned Notices dated 20.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 123
Availment of Input Tax Credit - appeal dismissed on the basis of invoices and bank transactions inasmuch as the transactions have not been proved as a bonafide and genuine transactions otherwise establishing the actual transportation of goods - finding of fact has been recorded against the dealer and the benefit has been allowed only on the basis of tax invoices and bank transactions - HELD THAT:- In the present case, counsel on behalf of the revisionist has submitted that the documents in relation to the transportation of goods were also provided to the authorities below. However, the same do not find reflection in the order passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. It is also true that the Tribunal has recorded finding that the Department has not been able to show any adverse document against the revisionist. The ratio of the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED [2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT] as the Tribunal has granted the I.T.C. merely on the basis of invoices and payment details.
The order passed by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and set-aside with a direction to the Tribunal to hear the matter afresh allowing the revisionist to produce documents in relation to the transactions including transportation documents and any other relevant document which the petitioner wishes to place. The Department may also be allowed to adduce further evidence, if it so desires - The Tribunal to decide the matter afresh.
The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 122
Violation of the principles of natural justice - impugned order is non-reasoned as the application for recall of the order was considered as application for rectification of mistake only - failure to consider the explanation of the Revisionist as sufficient cause for non- appearance on the date (07.12.2016) on which hearing was fixed - date of which certified copy of the Order dated 08.12.2016 is obtained, is to be considered as the date from which limitation period commences under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 or Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - affidavit of the Revisionist is enough to establish that the copy of order was not served upon the Revisionist - HELD THAT:- Absence of reasoning would render the judicial order liable to interference by the higher court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render the order open to judicial scrutiny. The consistent judicial opinion is that every order determining rights of the parties in a Court of law ought not to be recorded without supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order is not only beneficial to the higher courts but is even of great utility for providing public understanding of law and imposing self- discipline in the Judge as their discretion is controlled by well- established norms. Absence of reasoning is impermissible in judicial pronouncement.
It is the duty cast upon the Appellate Authority that even if it is in agreement with the view taken by the first Appellate Authority, it should give its own reasons/findings which may indicate that there has been application of mind and also the consideration of grounds raised in the appeal by the revisionist. In absence of reasons it is difficult to come to a conclusion that there has been any application of mind by the Tribunal and such an order in the opinion of the Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
The question posed for consideration in the revisions is answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in not complying the provisions of Clause 5 of Section 63 of the Rules, 2008 - the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 is hereby set-aside - revision allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 64
Time Limitation for reopening of assessment - impugned notice were issued after a lapse of five years for these assessment years - HELD THAT:- If no returns were filed or if the returns filed were incomplete or returns filed were incorrect or did not accompany any of the documents prescribed with proof of payment of tax, the Assessing Officer has to make a proper enquiry and assess a dealer to the best of this judgement, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, after the completion of the year.
There are no records to substantiate that the petitioner had filed returns in time for the respective assessment years in various assessment circles as is contemplated in Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. No Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Officer for the years in question. Therefore, question of either inferring deemed assessment as is contemplated under section 22 (1) and (2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 or actual assessment would not arise for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Since no Assessment Order came to be passed, question of the petitioner getting an opportunity to file a fresh return as is contemplated under section 22 (6) (a) (b) or (c) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 also did not arise - Since no returns were filed by the petitioner in time or thereafter as is prescribed under Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, it has to be construed that the Impugned Assessments dated 23.12.2019 is the first assessment passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
The limitation for reopening the Assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 will apply only six years thereafter. Therefore, there is no merits in the challenge to the Impugned Order. Since the demand has now been confirmed there cannot be any interference with the Impugned Notices issued to the respective banks attaching the accounts of the petitioners maintained with them.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 2
Refund of tax - contention of the appellant is that, by way of deduction of 2% tax at the time of payment and on his declaration of the turnover for every assessment years, he is entitled for refund of tax - whether the judgment rendered in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2020 (11) TMI 970 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has any bearing to the case in hand? - HELD THAT:- The judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of entertaining a Writ Petition without exhausting alternate remedy. In the above referred case, without affording opportunity, order levying penalty was issued and therefore, without preferring statutory appeal, the assessee approached this Court. In the said circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court held that existence of alternate remedy will not disentitle the writ petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution when the action of the statutory authority is unfair and against the principles of natural justice.
The facts involved in the case cited is different from the facts of the case in hand. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not given an opportunity. In fact, the impugned notice of the fourth respondent clearly indicates that the notice is to afford an opportunity for being heard and for participating in the proceedings. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the dictum laid in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. will apply to the case in hand.
Section 22(2) and amendment to Section 28 of the TNVAT Act to be read together to understand the intention of the legislature. The returns filed prior to 19.06.2012 under the self assessment scheme, but no explicit assessment orders are passed in these cases. By introducing the deeming clause, the assessee gets the privilege of assessment. At the same time, to prevent escaped assessment, the authority is vested with the power to revise any return, which has been deemed to have been assessed by virtue of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act and such power to revise, is restricted to the period of six years.
In this case, the assessing authority while causing the show cause notice has given opportunity to the assessee to participate in the proceedings. The order of the assessing authority is not final. The statute provides for appeal remedy. Hence, this Court finds that the Writ Petitions are frivolous litigations initiated by the assessee to circumvent the procedure established. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1299
Sales tax demand for use of invalid ST-1 Forms, by the selling dealer - it was held by High Court that The rejection of the Forms in the present case and claiming deduction on the basis thereof for the sale of PVC resins at ₹ 9,25,52,964/- was contrary to law. The findings of the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Authorities below are accordingly reversed - HELD THAT:- Leave granted. Hearing be expedited.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1298
Rectification of mistake - Refusal to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 31 of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 - miscarriage of justice or not - failure to exercise a jurisdiction duly vested by the authority of law - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Section 31 of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 would indicate that there is no such restriction in the learned Tribunal exercising its power of rectifying the mistake in as much as Section 31 of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 does not provide that such power can only be exercised by learned Tribunal in exparte orders rather Section 31 of the Act 2008 goes to the extent of empowering any officer, authority, learned Tribunal or this Court on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of record in any order passed under the provisions of the Act, 2008. Once no such restriction is contained under the provisions of the Section 31 of the Act 2008 as such it is apparent that learned Tribunal has patently erred in law in rejecting the said application vide the order dated 16.04.2018.
The matter is remitted to learned Tribunal to decide the application of the petitioner filed under Section 31 of the Act, 2008 in accordance with law - the revision is partly allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1247
Classification of goods - Ujala Supreme - classifiable under Entry No. No.54 (113) of Schedule-A, Part II-A of H.P. VAT Act, 2005 as ‘synthetic organic colouring matter’ or not? - It was held by High Court that The product ‘Ujala Supreme’ is held liable for VAT under H.P. VAT Act at the rate which is applicable for items against Entry 54(113) of the Part-II of Schedule-A of H.P. VAT Act - HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere in the matter(s) - SLP dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1246
Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - powers of AO to re-assess the escape turnover - Power of suo moto revision.
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court of India in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Excise and Taxation Officers-cum-Assessing Authority and Others [2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and the Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of powers to issue writs. Mere existence of an alternative statutory remedy would not oust the jurisdiction of this court to entertain writ petitions and to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the case of the petitioner falls within any of the exceptions carved out in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT].
There appears to be no dispute at bar that the power of assessment under Section 14 of the Nagaland (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1967 has been delegated to the Superintendent of Taxes by the Commissioner of Taxes under Section 45 of the said Act. In the instant case also, in all the writ petitions, the original assessment orders were passed by the Superintendent of Taxes.
The petitioner’s contention, in all three writ petitions, is that the powers to re-assess the escape turnover is primarily vested by Section 14 on the Assessing Officer and same is to be exercised subject to certain limitations and that in exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Act, the Additional Commissioner does not have the power to re-assess the escape turnover which is outside the purview of the powers of suo-motu revision conferred on the Additional Commissioner. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the very jurisdiction of the respondent authorities to issue impugned show cause notices as well as to pass impugned order.
From a reading of subsection (1) of Section 20, it is clear that the power of suo-moto revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceeding under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the person appointed to assist him is “erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue” - The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving inquiries into matters or orders which are already concluded. Such actions will be against the well accepted policy of law, and there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings. That stale issue should not be re-activated beyond a particular stage, and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must be in other spheres of human activity.
For exercising powers under Section 20 of the Nagaland (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1967, the Commissioner must come to a conclusion that the orders passed by the person appointed under Section 5 of the Act to assist him is erroneous, however, in the instant case, bare perusal of the orders dated 09.09.2020 passed in connection with the Assessment year 2014-2015, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, it appears that though it is observed therein that the assessment orders are erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to interest of revenue, however, it is also mentioned therein that it requires further inquiry and verification, which itself shows that the respondent No. 3 had not arrive at a conclusion that the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer were erroneous, rather, it appears that the respondent No. 3 had embarked upon reverification and recalculation of the assessment proceedings which were already examined by the assessing authority at the time of completion of the original assessment - The finding that the assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue must be based on the materials available from records called for by the Commissioner and for arriving at the said conclusion, he cannot call for the documents from the assessee himself as it would amount to reexamination and reverification of the returns filed by the assessee.
The respondent No. 3 cannot initiate proceedings with a view to start a fishing and roving inquiry in matters or orders which are already concluded unless there are materials available on records called for by him from which he arrives at a conclusion that the assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue - the power under Section 20 of the Act cannot be exercised by the Commissioner without satisfying the two components mentioned in the Section 20(1) of the Act, the Commissioner does not have the power to reexamine the accounts and determine the turnover himself at a higher figure merely because he is of the opinion that the estimate made by the assessing authority was on the lower side.
This Court is of considered opinion that the respondent No. 3 acted beyond jurisdiction in issuing show cause notices dated 28.04.2020 to the petitioner for the assessment years mentioned therein and also in issuing orders by which the assessment for the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were revised and turnover escaped assessment and short payment of notice taxes were determined. The respondent No. 4 has also acted beyond jurisdiction in issuing demand notices dated 09.09.2020 on the basis of orders passed by respondent No. 3 - The proceeding for suo-motu revisions under Section 20 (1) of the Act in all three cases pending before the Additional Commissioner of Taxes are hereby quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1217
Validity of recovery certificate dated 12.6.2019 issued by the respondent No. 3 - refund the amount of advertisement tax paid in advance by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The interest of justice would be subserved if the interim order dated 05.08.2019 is continued till the disposal of the writ petition. Since the matter is remanded to the High Court, the parties are directed who are represented by their respective counsel to appear before the High Court on 11.03.2024 without expecting any separate notices from the High Court and bring to the notice of the concerned Roster Bench the remand of the matter so that it could be considered and disposed of expeditiously as possible. With the cooperation of the parties it is expected that the High Court will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1216
Seeking review - error apparent on the face of record or not - rate of tax on Bar attached Hotels and shops - HELD THAT:- Review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This Court has considered each and every document and the submissions while rendering the Judgment in SREEVALSAM RESIDENCY, M/S. SNEHA REGENCY, A UNIT OF KOLLENGODE HERITAGE HOTELS & TOURISM PVT. LTD., M/S HOTEL JEENA AND UDAYA BAR, HOTEL ZODIAZ INTERNATIONAL, SAMS PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND HOTELS P LTD, DAHLIA TOURIST HOME, VERSUS STATE OF KERALA, STATE TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER, KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX OFFICER (ARREAR RECOVERY) AND OTHERS [2023 (12) TMI 109 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Furthermore, these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal. There has to be finality to a litigation. This Court, based on the submissions, documents and evidences, has rendered the Judgment sought to be reviewed.
There are no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court to reconsider this Judgment under review. There is no substance in these review petitions - petition dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1155
Refund claim - rejection of refund on the ground that the assessment order dated 23.08.2012 was not available on the DVAT Portal - HELD THAT:- It is informed by the learned counsel for respondents that petitioner had produced the relevant original documents, certified copy of the order as well as original F- Forms which have been duly verified.
In view of the fact that the basis of the impugned order was non-availability of certain record, which has now been verified by the department, the impugned order dated 24.02.2022 is liable to be set aside and the matter calls for a remit.
The matter is remitted to the competent authority to pass consequential orders in respect of the refund application of the petitioner - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (2) TMI 1076
Validity of grant of permission to the petitioner’s assessing authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Sector-7, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad, to re-assess the petitioner for the A.Y. 2012-2013 (U.P. and Central), in the extended period of limitation provided under Section 29 (7) of the Act - petitioner’s regular assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2012-13 was reopened - Effect of Section 27 of the Act - HELD THAT:- There did not pre-exist any principle of law where under an assessee could claim a deemed assessment or a consequence in law, equivalent to that. The U.P. Trade Tax Act that was repealed by the Act, did not contain a concept of a deemed assessment. Under that law, whenever limitation to frame assessment lapsed, no assessment arose. However, Section 27 of the Act made a clear departure from that pre-existing law. In no uncertain terms it provided that the annual return of turnover and tax filed under Section 24(7) of the Act would constitute a deemed assessment. It would arise on the last day of filing of the annual return. Further, the facts disclosed, and figures mentioned in that return were deemed to be part of the assessment order.
The deeming fiction in law revived upon order dated 01.02.2016 being passed. Earlier, it may have remained in the shadow and thus dormant in face of the specific/conscious assessment order dated 04.01.2016 yet, in view of that order being recalled on 01.02.2016, it got resurrected by the force of law. It became absolute upon expiry of period of limitation to make a fresh assessment i.e. on 30.09.2016. Since, the assessing officer failed to make any specific order of assessment in terms of Section 29(6) of the Act till 30.09.2016, his powers to make the regular assessment stood exhausted. It is on the occurrence of that passive event on 30.09.2016 i.e. lapse of limitation to make a regular assessment that the deeming fiction of law created by Section 27 of the Act became absolute.
If however, as in the present case, jurisdiction to reassess had remained from being assumed within the normal period of limitation - that expired on 31.03.2016, the subsequent setting aside of the regular ex parte assessment order would have no effect as to jurisdiction to initiate such reassessment proceeding - Therefore, in the present facts the assessing authority was obligated to first obtain an approval of his higher authority namely the Additional Commissioner to proceed to reassess the petitioner in the extended period of limitation namely eight years.
There was neither any relevant material nor any reason was recorded by the assessing authority that any part of the turnover of the petitioner had escaped assessment. Consequently, the jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner never arose with the assessing authority for A.Y. 2012-13. Unfortunately, that basic aspect escaped the attention of the Additional Commissioner, who appears to have granted the permission to the petitioner- assessing authority to reassess the petitioner in the extended period of limitation, in a mechanical exercise of his power.
It is not examined whether the reassessment order dated 17.03.2021 is ante dated or not. Since the jurisdiction never arose, the entire proceedings were conducted without jurisdiction and are a nullity.
There are no hesitation to record satisfaction that the order dated 30.01.2021, as modified on 08.02.2021 passed by that authority, granting permission to the assessing authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Sector-7, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad as well as the reassessment order dated 17.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 (U.P. and Central) are a nullity. They are quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 953
Validity of two Notices dated 13.01.2020 issued by the first respondent for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 - notices are within Jurisdiction or not - no certificate was issued to the petitioner in Form S to claim exemption under proviso to Sub Clause (c) to Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 9 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT:- Whether the petitioner was liable to pay tax under Section 5 or 6 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is not clearly forthcoming from the documents filed before this Court. It is quite possible that the petitioner had opted to pay tax under Section 5 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and therefore had obtained Form S Certificate of no tax liability under proviso to Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with TNVAT Rules, 2007 but had failed to pay the tax. This would require a fresh determination.
However, it remains unexplained, as to why, by the CMRL having opted to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 6 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, the petitioner would procure Form S from the Commercial Tax Department under proviso to Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with 9(2) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. This require a proper explanation by the petitioner.
Therefore, if CMRL had failed to deduct the amounts under Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, machinery under Section 13(8) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, is to be directed only against CMRL. Therefore, to that extent the Impugned Notices are without jurisdiction. The 2% demand proposed in the Impugned Notices is to be directed only against CMRL and not on the petitioner.
Therefore the proposed demand in the Impugned Notices are quashed. However, liberty is given to the Commercial Tax Department to complete the assessment if the petitioner was liable to pay tax under Sections 5 and Section 6 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 952
Validity of assessment order - challenge on the ground of time limitation - last date for reopening the assessment under Section 27 TNVAT, 2006 would have expired or not - no deemed assessment - HELD THAT:- There is no justification in the challenge to the impugned assessment order on the ground of limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - The limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 will apply only in case where there is an escaped assessment after an assessment order was passed earlier where there is a deemed assessment under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Whether the returns filed were incomplete or incorrect can be determined only by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there cannot be a determination of the disputed facts in a summary proceedings before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 will apply only where there is a deemed assessment strictly in accordance with section 22 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
There is no merits in these present writ petitions. They are therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 951
Rectification of mistake - exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction - Power of review - seeking rectification of assessment order on the ground that the Assessing Authority had wrongly taxed the sale of wheat flour at the rate of 3% instead of 2%, as provided under the Act by virtue of Notification dated 28.09.1989 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 33 of HGST Act, 1973 would reveal that the same provides for rectification of clerical mistakes and errors. The Assessing Authority or any such authority, as may be prescribed, may rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record, at any time, within two years from the date of any order, passed by him and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed. Further, Section 40 of HGST Act, 1973, empowers the Commissioner to call on his own motion for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of, by any officer appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of HGST Act, 1973 to assist him or any Assessing Authority or Appellate Authority, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or to propriety of any proceedings or of any order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto, as he may think fit.
As far as rectification of an order is concerned, the same can be done by the concerned authority within a period of two years from the date of the order. As regards the initiation of revisional proceedings is concerned, the said power is circumscribed by the first proviso as well as third proviso to Section 40 (1) of HGST Act, 1973, in as much as that the order, which is sought to be revised, cannot be revised after the expiry of five years from the date of the order and in terms of third proviso to Section 40 (1) of HGST Act, 1973, the assessee or any other person shall have no right to invoke revisional power under this sub-section.
As regards the scope and ambit of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 40 of HGST Act, 1973 is concerned, same is no more res integra as the same was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in MAHABIR TECHNO LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2016 (8) TMI 298 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held thatThe proceedings initiated for revision of the orders of assessment having not concluded within the period of five years from the date of order sought to be revised, as envisaged under Section 40 of the Act, the Revisional Authority now does not have any jurisdiction to pass the order.
In view of aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Mahabir Techno Limited, it is manifest that in case the revisional proceedings are initiated by the Revisional Authority under Section 40 (1) of HGST Act, 1973, the same are required to be concluded within a period of five years from the date of the order sought to be revised and after the expiry of the said period of five years, the Revisional Authority does not have any jurisdiction to pass any order. Apparently, in the instant case, the Revisional Authority had initiated the revisional proceedings in respect of assessment order dated 17.07.1992 with regard to Assessment Year 1991-92, however, since revisional proceedings were not concluded within a period of five years i.e. upto 17.07.1997, the same were rightly dropped by the Revisional Authority, vide its order dated 20.03.2001.
The power to review was available with the Tribunal below in terms of Section 41 of HGST Act, 1973 and the errors apparent on the record have been culled out by the Tribunal below in its order dated 28.08.2017 - The Tribunal below has correctly appreciated the facts as well as law on the issue and the Tribunal below was fully justified in exercising its review jurisdiction in passing the order dated 28.08.2017 - there are no illegality or perversity in the order dated 28.08.2017 (Annexure A-13), passed by the Tribunal below, which has been rendered after correctly appreciating the facts and as well as the law.
There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 950
Applicability of doctrine of finality and res-judicata - Levy of entry tax on craft paper purchased by the applicant from outside the local area - craft paper purchased by the applicant has been used in manufacturing of coated abrasive sheet (Regmar paper), and is not meant for writing, printing and packing as provided by notification no.104 dated 15.1.09 - non-consideration of identical issue been decided in favour of the applicant by this Hon'ble Court for the assessment year 2010-11 in THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX LKO. VERSUS S/S JOHN OKAY AND MOHAN LTD. [2015 (12) TMI 1898 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- The principles of res-judicata do not apply squarely for one assessment year to the other. However, keeping in mind the doctrine of finality, unless there is a marked change from one assessment year to the other, the department cannot be allowed to take a different stand. The above principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments including BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Supreme Court has held Where facts and in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether qushi-judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. This mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the earlier decision or where the earlier decision in per-incuriam. However, these are fetters only on a coordinate bench which, failing the possibility of availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the matter a Bench of superior strength or in some cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction.
In the light of the above, it is clear that as no new facts have emerged in the present case, the questions of law have to be decided in favour of the assessee - Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 949
Jurisdiction - violation of principles of natural justice - whether the authority did not have jurisdiction to make a demand in the teeth of the assessment order by which the assessment for the financial year was already made? - reassessment made without a show cause notice or an opportunity of a hearing being granted to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- There is much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner, namely that at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner (VAT) / respondents, an assessment order was passed on 1 September 2018 whereby taking into consideration the declaration of forms namely C, F & H forms and the amounts as involved, the Tax liability was calculated at Rs. 1252/- for non-submission of C & F forms. The said amount was admittedly paid. Once such assessment stood finalised in terms of the order dated 1 September 2018, the only course of action available to the department was to reopen such assessment as the law would mandate. Also the department could have taken recourse to the provisions of Regulation 58(4) of the 2005 Regulation which pertains to “reassessment”.
It is quite clear that such procedure as the law would recognize was not followed by the Deputy Commissioner in issuing the impugned communication. Thus, an incongruous position is reflected by the record of the department namely, on one hand an assessment order which is not set aside or invalidated in any manner known to law has remained to operate and on the other hand, in the course of processing of the refund application the impugned demand has been raised without any re-assessment of the assessment order and/or invalidating the returns filed by the petitioner as per the procedure the law would mandate the department to follow. This apart, the basic requirement in law of the department following the principles of natural justice, has also been overlooked in issuing the impugned communication.
Admittedly, the impugned order is an ex-parte order. There is nothing on record to justify that the petitioner was issued any show cause notice or the petitioner was heard, before the deputy commissioner could come to a conclusion that the demands as set out in the impugned order are required to be made against the petitioner.
The impugned orders/communications dated 2 September 2020 Exhibit-A & Exhibit-B are quashed and set aside - The respondents is at liberty to follow the due procedure in law, in the event, the department is not accepting the assessment order dated 1 September 2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and/or to raise a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, on any ground as the law may permit. All contentions of the parties in respect of any proposed proceedings are expressly kept open.
Petition allowed.
........
|
