|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 27753 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 624
Benefit of concessional rate of tax - Whether the appellant could indeed be treated as one who had been permitted to pay tax on compounded basis under Section 7 of the KGST Act? - an application was filed for compounded tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any positive action by the State, on the application preferred by the appellant dealer, one has to go by the conduct of the parties in arriving at a finding as to whether or not there was a consensus between the assessee and the department on the method of payment of tax by the assessee - while there was an application preferred by the appellant seeking permission from the department to pay tax on compounded basis in accordance with Section 7 of the KGST Act, there was no permission expressly granted by the department within the period of one year for which the permission was sought by the appellant. In terms of offer and acceptance, the offer made by the appellant was never accepted by the department. Further, looking to the conduct of the appellant assessee during the said period, we find that even that does not support a finding that the assessee intended to pay tax on compounded basis since the assessee had admittedly paid the tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the KGST Act. This is borne out by the figures showing payment of tax, despite the fact that those figures were inserted in a return that was meant to be used by paying tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act.
For the purposes of assessment year 2021-22, there was no consensus between the assessee and the department on the aspect of payment of tax on compounded basis. This being the case and the compounded basis of payment of tax being an alternate method to the regular method of payment of tax envisaged under Section 5 of the Act, in the absence of any express indication that would clearly point to the exercise of an option by the assessee to pay tax on compounded basis, the assessee had only decided to pay tax in accordance with the regular provisions in accordance with Section 5 of the KGST Act.
Once it is found that the actual payment of tax by the assessee during the assessment year 2021-22 was in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the KGST Act and not in accordance with Section 7 of the KGST Act, the conclusion is inescapable that the benefit of concessional rate of tax, that was announced by the State Government in respect of tax paid by bar attached hotels, would enure to the appellant assessee as well.
Conclusion - The department could not after the expiry of the assessment year in question have accepted an application for compounding, which was no longer relevant, and further completed an assessment based thereon against the assessee.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 603
Cancellation of the L1 certificate issued under Section 5-G of the A.P.G.S.T Act - late filing of the monthly returns for the period April, 2002 to November, 2002 - challenge to Rule 6-B (2) (iii) of the A.P.G.S.T Act on the ground that the same is contrary under Section 5-G of the A.P.G.S.T Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned order contains an order of assessment as well as an order of cancellation of the L1 certificate. The learned counsel contends that this is not permissible. However, he has not placed any provisions of law, which prohibits the passing of such a combined order. It must be noted that this order has been passed, after the petitioner was put on notice about the proposal to cancel the L1 certificate and also the proposal to tax the turnover under section 5F of the Act. In such a situation there are no reason to hold the impugned order invalid, merely because it is a combined order.
Rule 6-B (2) (iii) provides for cancellation of the permission granted for composition of tax, under Section 5-G, if there has been suppression of turnover by the dealer or the dealer fails to pay tax within the specified time or if the dealer contravenes any provision or any of the Rules. This Court does not find any reason to hold that these provisions are in violation of Section 5-G. A perusal of Section 5-G would show that the said provision itself provides that such composition would be granted subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. In this case, the prescription of such conditions is set out in Rule 6-B (2) (iii). The provision of Section 5-G itself empowers the rule making authority to stipulate conditions for grant of composition. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the conditions stipulated under Rule 6-B (2) (iii) are in any manner ultra vires of Section 5-G of the A.P.G.S.T Act.
The impugned assessment order states that the permission for composition, granted under the Form L1 certificate, is being cancelled for contravention of Rule 6-B (2) (iii), because of the late filing of the monthly returns for the period April 2002 to November, 2002 and the late filing of the return, by three days, for the month of March, 2003 - The cancellation of L1 certificate, thus appear to be disproportionate to the contribution of the Act or Rules, however, it would be appropriate that this issue is considered again by the Assessing Authority.
Conclusion - i) It cannot be said that the conditions stipulated under Rule 6-B (2) (ii) are in any manner ultra vires of Section 5-G of the A.P.G.S.T Act. ii) The cancellation of L1 certificate, thus appear to be disproportionate to the contribution of the Act or Rules, however, it would be appropriate that this issue is considered again by the Assessing Authority.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (1) TMI 602
Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to mention of provisions of Section 21 (5) of A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Time limitation of audit assessment proceedings dated 13.10.2020 - whether the impugned order of assessment was passed within the period of limitation or not. In usual course, the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the tax period and the order dated 13.10.2020 is beyond the period of limitation? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had received all the show cause notices. However, the petitioner chose not to respond to either the initial show cause notice issued in June, 2020 or the subsequent notices.
The question of violation of principles of natural justice would arise, if a show cause notice is issued to a person and he responds to such show cause notice, after which additional grounds, which were not raised in the show cause notice are utilized, for passing an adverse order against the notice. In the present case, the petitioner has not responded to any of the show cause notices. In such circumstances, non-mentioning of Section 21 (5) of the Act, in the show cause notice, would not be fatal to the impugned order dated 13.10.2020.
The audit assessment dated 13.10.2020 was not barred by limitation due to the application of the extended period under Section 21(5) for tax evasion.
Conclusion - i) The omission of Section 21(5) in the show cause notices did not violate the principles of natural justice, given the petitioner's lack of response. ii) The audit assessment dated 13.10.2020 was not barred by limitation due to the application of the extended period under Section 21(5) for tax evasion.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 525
Challenge to assessment order - attachment of immovable property of the Petitioner for recovery of tax - HELD THAT:- The Respondent Authorities shall hear and decide the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner in a time bound manner. If any documents are called for from the Petitioner [and which are not in the possession of the Respondent Authorities], and the same are not furnished, the Respondent Authorities are free to reject the Rectification Application or pass whatever Order it deems fit. We have inquired from the parties and they both have stated that the Petitioner would remain present before the Respondent Authorities on 30th January 2025, for a hearing on the Rectification Application. Once the Rectification Application is heard, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible by the concerned authorities.
Conclusion - Since, the Petitioner is not in a position to deposit any substantial amount, it is not inclined to grant any stay to the attachment notice or to the sale that is supposed to be conducted in relation to the property attached.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 524
Attachment of immovable property of the Petitioner for recovery of tax - delegation of power of framing an assessment under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Value Added Tax Regulations, 2005 and the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - required documents not produced - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Since, the documents were not furnished, the department has not been able to assess the actual tax as directed by this Court. It is for this reason that the Rectification Application has not been heard. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents also brought to attention the letter dated 4th October 2023 addressed by the Petitioner’s propriety concern (Shah Automobiles) wherein, it is stated that they would, inter alia, deposit a sum of Rs. 2.71 Crores and the Authorities were requested not to proceed further in recovering the tax until the Rectification Application is heard. This letter is not annexed to the Petition and has been suppressed by the Petitioner, was the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
The Respondent Authorities shall hear and decide the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner in a time bound manner. If any documents are called for from the Petitioner [and which are not in the possession of the Respondent Authorities], and the same are not furnished, the Respondent Authorities are free to reject the Rectification Application or pass whatever Order it deems fit - Once the Rectification Application is heard, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible by the concerned authorities.
Conclusion - i) The Assessment Order was improperly applied, requiring reconsideration by the Respondent Authorities. ii) The Rectification Application must be heard and decided promptly, with the Petitioner given an opportunity to present necessary documents. iii) The attachment and auction of the Petitioner's property were not stayed.
It is not inclined to grant any stay to the attachment notice or to the sale that is supposed to be conducted in relation to the property attached - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 473
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative statutory appellate remedy - invocation of writ jurisdiction of the High Court - HELD THAT:- It is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter to the effect that appellant can prefer a statutory appeal against the orders that were impugned in the writ petitions subject to he making pre-deposit of 30% of disputed tax along with interest accruing due thereon till the filing of writ petitions i.e., 30.08.2019, within four weeks.
This appeal is disposed off permitting the appellant to avail the remedy of statutory appeal under section 62 of the 2003 Act subject to depositing 30% of the amount due in terms of the impugned Assessment Orders; the interest accruing due on such amount only till 30.08.2019 shall also be reckoned while computing this.
-
2025 (1) TMI 472
Violation of principles of natural justice - passing a non-speaking order without considering the submissions of the Petitioner - classification of product as "Rusk" under Entry 77B of the Schedule of the OVAT Act, 2004, instead of classifying it as "Bread (branded or otherwise)" under Entry 34 of Schedule A of the OVAT Act, 2004 - non-consideration of judgment of KESHARWANI ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS (AND OTHER CASES) [2018 (3) TMI 1683 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- The product in question is essentially bread. However, the Odisha Act provides for two separate entries in respect of bread. When something more is done to it to result in toasted bread, it is included in the separate taxable entry. On perusal of the assessment order, the first appellate order and impugned order we do find there has been different findings on fact regarding the product. However, the Tribunal does not appear to have suffered from any confusion in finding, as the last forum to find on facts that the product is toasted bread. Though entry 77B in Schedule B includes products other than rusk, but given meaning by the entry, of rusk to be hardened bread, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for coming to a finding that petitioner’s product is hardened bread as in toast. It is a clear case of the product of bread having two applicable classifications.
The decision in Kesharwani Enterprises is not applicable since the Chhattisgarh Act does not have an entry corresponding to entry 77B in Schedule B. Also, revenue’s submission regarding G. RADHAKRISHNA MURTHI & CO. AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-IVB, VIJAYAWADA AND OTHERS (AND OTHER APPEALS AND WRIT PETITION) [1997 (2) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT], of a distinct and separate product said by the Supreme Court as cannot come within the entry, as cannot be expanded to accommodate it, to be inapplicable because the Odisha Act provides for two separate entries in respect of essentially the same products bread and rusk, the latter being hardened bread as in toast.
Conclusion - The product in question is essentially bread. The Tribunal's classification of the product under Entry 77B and imposition of penalty is upheld.
There are no substantial question of law to arise from impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The review petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 471
Applicability of provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of HP VAT Act, 2005 - HELD THAT:- Without there being a specific finding with regard to applicability of sub-section (4) of Section 16, the orders passed by the authorities below cannot sustain.
The present revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority to decide the case afresh and while doing the assessing authority shall take into consideration the ratio of the judgments laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT], the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER VERSUS KAMAL GLASS BOTTLES SUPPLY CO. [1992 (3) TMI 340 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], A Division Bench judgment of Orissa High Court in INDIAN PAINTS AND CHEMICALS (P) LTD. VERSUS SALES TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK CENTRAL I CIRCLE [1997 (5) TMI 409 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in DAYLE DE’SOUZA VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) AND ANOTHER [2021 (11) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that 'Under the Proviso (a) to Section 200 of the 1973 Code, there may lie an exemption from recording pre-summoning evidence when a private complaint is filed by a public servant in discharge of his official duties; however, it is the duty of the Magistrate to apply his mind to see whether on the basis of the allegations made and the evidence, a prima facie case for taking cognizance and summoning the accused is made out or not.'
Matter remanded back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration with specific instructions to comply with procedural requirements and exercise discretion judiciously.
-
2025 (1) TMI 470
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the ex-parte assessment order - no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay - HELD THAT:- The First Appellate Authority as well as the MSTT have correctly come to the conclusion that no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. It is the case of the Appellant that the ex-parte assessment order, and which was challenged under Section 26, was served upon the brother of one of the partners of the Appellant-Firm. That brother did not inform any of the partners of the passing of the assessment order and therefore the delay in filing the Appeal. Both the Authorities below have disbelieved this story and hence refused to exercise their discretion in condoning the delay. After going through the record we also find the story of the Appellant rather unbelievable.
There is absolutely no explanation coming forward as to how the brother of one of the partners of the firm, and who claims that he was never a partner of the Appellant-firm, got his hands on the seal of the partnership firm. Even the affidavit filed by the said brother, and which is on record at Exhibit- “F” of the Petition, is completely silent on how he (the brother) had in his possession the seal of a partnership firm of which he claims he was never a partner. Even in the above Appeal, no explanation is given as to how the brother of the one of the partners had in his possession the seal of the partnership firm.
Conclusion - The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned due to the lack of sufficient cause.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 335
Disallowance of claims of branch transfers by CMS Computers under section 6A of the CST Act - inter-state sale or not - levy to tax under the CST Act with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the Assessing Officer has not provided any specific finding and had given a general finding that there were pre-existing orders for movement of goods. Mere existences of pre-existing purchase orders, prior to movement of goods, does not automatically imply that the entire movement constitutes an inter-state sale, particularly when the goods are stock transferred in the regular course of business. CMS Computers had to maintain ample stock at the branch office to fulfill the orders placed by the different customers. The Assessing Officer was obliged to evaluate each transaction involving the transfer of goods before deciding whether to allow or disallow the branch transfer.
In this connection reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering Locomotive [1970 (3) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that 'It has been suggested that all the transactions were of similar nature and the appellant’s representative had himself submitted that a specimen transaction alone need be examined. In our judgment this was a wholly wrong procedure to follow and the Assistant Commissioner, on whom the duty lay of assessing the tax in accordance with law, was bound to examine each individual transaction and then decide whether it constituted an inter-state sale exigible to tax under the provisions of the Act.'
Conclusion - The State Tribunal had meticulously examined the decisions and the factual position and has, therefore, considered it appropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the lorry receipts/dispatch proof in respect of each of the transactions. There is, therefore, no infirmity in order passed by the State Tribunal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 303
Challenge to Assessment Orders - despite earlier writ petitions were filed and the petitioner had secured orders quashing the Assessment Orders that were passed earlier, now the present Impugned Orders have been passed - tax demanded and the penalty imposed together with interest recovered from the petitioner - lack of consideration of the petitioner's submissions and evidence - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the orders passed are stereotype orders. They have merely recorded that having considered the submissions of the petitioner, the submissions of the petitioner were not acceptable and therefore the demands have been confined in the Impugned Assessment Orders.
Conclusion - Since the reply of the petitioner has not been considered properly and there is no discussion in the order, the Impugned Assessment Orders are liable to be quashed as arbitrary.
The Impugned Assessment Orders are quashed. The respective cases are remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (1) TMI 262
Civil revision under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 challenging the order of Rajasthan Tax Board - exercise of jurisdiction under Section 22 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Evidently, explanation II of Section 22 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, makes it abundantly clear that “goods in transport” means goods which have been handed over to a carrier and complete delivery thereof has not taken from such carrier. In the case on hand, none of the five asserted consignee claimed that in fact they had purchased the goods as claimed by the petitioner. The addressee Satyam Enterprises gone to the extent of making complaint against act of the petitioner. Therefore, at the time of seizure, the goods was with the carrier as such was in transit and covered by the explanation of Section 22A.
Conclusion - The goods are considered in transit until delivery is confirmed by the consignee, and proper documentation is essential to avoid penalties.
This Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision. Accordingly, this Civil Revision stands dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 261
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of 7.5% pre-deposit as a condition for appeal can be waived or interfered with by the court - HELD THAT:- It is clear from Manoranjan Chakraborty [2000 (11) TMI 1079 - SUPREME COURT] that the provisions were upheld by the Supreme Court. So much so, there was no exercise of power under article 142 in the Constitution to do complete justice, to permit the respondent to pay any lesser amount than 50%. Nevertheless, the Court said, it was clear that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown for good reason Court should interfere then notwithstanding alternative remedy, a writ Court can in an appropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do substantive justice.
Conclusion - Statutory pre-deposit requirements are generally binding unless gross injustice is clearly demonstrated.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 218
Whether the benefit of exemption under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006 would ennure for exemption under Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956? - HELD THAT:- Identical issue arose for consideration in NATESAN VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, ATTUR [2025 (1) TMI 135 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.II(1)/CTR/30(a-2)/2007 (TNGG Extraordinary/March 23, 2007 [G.O.Ms.No.79, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) Department] dated 23.03.2007 with consequential relief.'
Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to the exemption under the TNVAT Act for interstate sales under the CST Act, as no notification to the contrary was issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 217
Demand of central sales tax on movement of goods from the manufacturing unit of the appellant situated in the State of Rajasthan to its depots in the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand - inter-state supply of goods or inter-state stock transfers - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board shows that it has reproduced the observations of the Rajasthan Tax Board in Appeal No’s. 1229-1233 decided on 24.11.2014. It is the order passed in these five appeals that were assailed by M/S CARLSBERG INDIA PVT. LTD., M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD. AND M/S MOUNT SHIVALIK INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAIPUR, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, JAIPUR, THE STATE OF BIHAR AND THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [2024 (10) TMI 1124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]
It was held in the case that 'The movement of goods cannot also be considered incidental to the Master Agreement. Reliance placed by the Rajasthan Tax Board and the learned senior counsel for the State of Rajasthan on clause 2 of the Master Agreement to justify that the movement of goods occurred incidental to the Master Agreement, is not correct.'
Conclusion - The transactions were stock transfers, not sales.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 135
Entitlement to claim a concessional tax rate under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956, without furnishing 'C' forms - It is submitted that in absence of specific notification issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of exemption under the above notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006 for local clearance - HELD THAT:- As per Sub-Section (5) to Section 8 of the CST Act, the State Government has to issue a notification which should specify the conditions - In this case, no notification has been issued under Sub-Section (5) to Section 8 of the CST Act which has been brought to the attention of the Court.
Unless a specific notification has been issued under Sub-Section (5) to Section 8 of the CST Act, only General Notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006 will apply to the interstate transactions by applying Sub-Section (2) to Section 8 of the CST Act.
Conclusion - Since there is no notification issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act, the conditions of Section 8(5) of the CST Act will not apply to the facts of the case.
The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.II(1)/CTR/30(a-2)/2007 - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 134
Recovery of arrears of sales tax - priority charge over the assets - Whether the Respondent No. 5 (The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax) will have priority charge over the secured assets sold by Petitioner bank (secured creditor) under the SARFAESI Act?
HELD THAT:- The dicta of the Full Bench in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2022 (9) TMI 163 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the present proceedings. In the ratio of the said judgment it has been held that even where there is an attachment order of the State Tax authorities prior to the secured assets’ attachment, without any further steps being taken towards issuing a proclamation of sale, the State Tax Authorities cannot claim priority over the dues payable to the secured creditor, whose security interest is registered with CERSAI.
In the present case, the order of attachment issued by the State Tax Department is dated 11th December, 2018. It is thereafter that steps have been taken to attach the immovable property. As noted above, the registration of the Bank Security Interest with CERSAI is dated 18th December, 2014 which is much prior to the order of attachment issued by the State Tax Department.
Conclusion - The claim of secured creditor that is the Petitioner – Bank, will have preference over the claim of Respondents (State Tax Department).
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 62
Recovery of Tax dues - Effect of CIRP Proceedings under IBC - Challenge to action of respondents, directing the respondent No. 2 to recover the outstanding amount from its Bank account - non-payment of the entry tax for the goods purchased by the petitioner from outside the State of Rajasthan - HELD THAT:- As per Sections 31 and 238 of the IBC, the approved Resolution Plan has been made binding on the Corporate Debtors - McNally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., its employees, members, creditors, guarantors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan, to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, is owed. Section 238 of the IBC provides that the Code will prevail in case of inconsistency between two laws.
This court also examined similar controversy in the case of Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. [2020 (4) TMI 269 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and held that any demands made by the Statutory Creditor, i.e. Commercial Taxes Department, for the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished with the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT - Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date.
Conclusion - Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date.
The impugned communication/notice dated 17.07.2019 is invalid - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 61
Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner to pass an order u/s 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 after the expiry of more than 4 years since the passing of the original order - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the order sought to be revised was passed on 31.07.2017. The records were called for under letter dated 13.07.2021 which was dispatched on 14.07.2021 and records were received by the Additional Commissioner on 22.07.2021 and notice under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act was issued to the appellant on 28.07.2021. If the proceedings is initiated within 4 years from the date of order sought to be revised, the date of serving notice on the assessee would have no consequence. Initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act is relevant for computing limitation of 4 years and not service of notice or passing of order under Section 64 (1) of KVAT Act.
The Full Bench of this Court in M/S.KHIMIJIBHAI MILLS [2000 (12) TMI 883 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that 'Emphasis in the earlier provision was in affirmative terms to exercise the power only within 4 years, whereas now the emphasis is in the negative terms by saying that the authority shall not exercise the power beyond the period of 4 years. There is no material difference either to the exercise of the power to revise or to the period of limitation prescribed.'
It is clear from the above that four years limitation prescribed under Section -64 of KVAT Act is to call for records and to initiate proceedings and not to pass final order.
Conclusion - The limitation period under Section 64 of the KVAT Act pertains to the initiation of revisional proceedings, not the conclusion of such proceedings.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 4
Authority and jurisdiction of respondent to issue show cause notices after entering into a One Time Settlement (OTS) with the petitioner - no allegation of any fraud being committed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that very purpose of bringing such OTS scheme is to encourage the tax payers to settle their disputes. Interestingly, in the OTS scheme issued by the Government of Telangana, the entire exercise of determination of tax/penalty amount was in the hands of the respondents and for that purpose, a committee consisting of senior officers was constituted. After having undertaken the entire exercise of determination of amount, a proposal was given by the respondents to the petitioner, which was duly accepted. The most important thing is that between the date of acceptance dated 22.06.2022 and actual recording of OTS on 17.08.2022, the Audit Officer by communication dated 11.07.2022 informed the respondents about the alleged short levy of tax/penalty. Despite having full knowledge about it, the respondent entered into OTS. There is no allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice that petitioner had committed any fraud.
After having entered into OTS, it was not open for the respondents to issue the impugned show cause notice. Curtains were finally drawn by the respondents by entering into OTS. If we permit the respondents to undertake aforesaid exercise of issuance of show cause notices even after entering into settlement, the very purpose of such scheme will vanish in thin air. This practice will certainly discourage the tax payers to enter into settlement. The settlement should draw the curtains for all times to come otherwise the very meaning of OTS will pale into insignificance.
Conclusion - The finality of settlements under OTS schemes should be respected, and reopening is not permissible without statutory authority or allegations of fraud.
The impugned show cause notices cannot sustain judicial scrutiny - Petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
