|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 934 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 662
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of entry tax on goods purchased in the course of inter-State trade and the liability to pay entry tax on goods imported from outside the country.
Imposition of Entry Tax on Inter-State Trade:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order imposing entry tax on the purchase of SKO in the course of inter-State trade for the year 2003-04. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, setting aside the levy of entry tax. The Revenue then appealed to the Rajasthan Tax Board, which rejected the appeal. The Revenue argued that entry tax is applicable as soon as goods are brought within the local area, even if imported from outside India. However, the High Court held that the goods imported fell under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and no liability of entry tax can be imposed in such cases. The Court found no error of law in the decisions of the lower appellate authorities and dismissed the revision petition.
Liability to Pay Entry Tax on Imported Goods:
The Revenue contended that entry tax is a compensatory measure for the loss of revenue to the State and should be applicable even on goods imported from outside India. However, the High Court held that entry tax cannot be levied on goods imported from outside the country as per the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court found no legal error in the decisions of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board, as the goods in question were imported and not subject to entry tax. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 661
Condonation of delay of 1,226 days of filing appeal - Held that:- What is stated for explaining such delay is that due to Government administrative mechanism, within the statutory time period, tax appeal could not be filed. In absence of any specific details and explanation, this explanation in general terms does not satisfy.
There can be no straight-jacket formula adopted which can be applied uniformly in all matters, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In absence of any satisfactory explanation coming forth for condonation of delay, no liberal attitude requires to be adopted; particularly considering the inordinate delay in preferring this application. Only because the applicant is the State, it cannot be absolved of its responsibility to fulfil the mandate of law. Even if day-to-day explanation is not desired, for a long period after the sanction of Finance Department also, nothing emerges on record to indicate due care or diligence to satisfy the requirement of explaining sufficiency of cause. Condonation rejected.
-
2013 (2) TMI 660
Non payment of Professional tax - petitioner did not register itself under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 nor did it file returns as provided under section 7 of the Act - penalty levied - Held that:- In the absence of any provision enacted by the Legislatures for levy of penalty on the assessees who do not register themselves or file returns under the Act, there cannot be any levy of penalty. It is settled law that courts cannot supply a casus omissus Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit [2005 (5) TMI 615 - SUPREME COURT] and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [2008 (3) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT] and only the Legislature can supply any lacuna in the Act. Therefore, levying penalty on the petitioner cannot be sustained. The first respondent had no jurisdiction under the Act to levy penalty on the petitioner which had not registered itself under the Act nor filed returns as mandated by the Act.In favour of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 659
Claim of input-tax rebate denied - non production of books of accounts - Held that:- Though it is contended by Sri Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the appellant, that even as certified by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), the assessee had produced all books of accounts, etc., the question is as to whether the production of books of accounts was in the context of the claim of input-tax rebate in terms of section 10 read with section 17 of the Act and producing general books of accounts is of no avail when claim is under the specific provision and in respect of particular nature of transaction.
It is therefore that we also direct the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to whom the matter is now remanded to examine the appeal afresh on merits, to give opportunity to the appellant-dealer if so desired to produce additional evidence and to consider the same along with the available material and to pass order afresh in the appeal of the dealer.In the result, these appeals are allowed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 658
Ex parte assessment order - whether orders of reassessment passed by the first respondent beyond the period of three years from the date of receipt by him of the respective orders of the appellate authority (second respondent) (remitting the matter to the first respondent) as required under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 are barred by limitation?
Held that:- Sub-clause (ii) of section 153(3) could not be understood as empowering the High Court to give a direction to the authority under the Act to ignore the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Orders of the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent are barred by limitation prescribed under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and hence, are without jurisdiction.
Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders dated November 9, 2012 of the second respondent, to the extent he directed the first respondent to make de novo assessments, is quashed and the first respondent is restrained from proceeding any further in the matter.
-
2013 (2) TMI 657
Eligibility certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act denied on the ground that one Member of Secretary Level Committee did not agree with the majority view - Held that:- As the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated April 22, 1992, it is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated April 22, 1992, is quashed. The opposite-parties are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh, after giving personal opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. As the matter is lingering since 1991, we hope and trust that appropriate orders will be passed expeditiously.
-
2013 (2) TMI 656
Best judgment assessment - whether assessment could be resorted to only after the rejection of books of accounts that too during the course of assessment proceedings? - Held that:- No merit in the present appeal as after framing of the assessment, the information came to the notice of the Assessing Authority that the appellant has not reflected certain sales in the return submitted by it. The Assessing Authority found that not only the appellant has purchased iron and steel from different dealers, which are not reflected in the accounts, but also the sales were also not reflected. Therefore, the Assessing Authority proceeded to frame the best judgment assessment. Once the sales are proved to be outside the said books of accounts, a fact not disputed by the appellant, the rejection of the books of accounts is necessary consequence. The Assessing Authority was able to find out the undisclosed sales in the account books for one month but such could be practice in the other months of the year as well. It cannot be said that the assessee has made purchases and sales outside the books of account only for the one month.
-
2013 (2) TMI 655
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal was justified in constituting a new Bench even after two Members out of the three-Member Bench had already signed the order?
Held that:- Tribunal having decided the appeal vide order dated April 4, 2011, the same could not have been posted for rehearing and decided vide order dated May 31, 2012. Such an order is not an order of review and is not tenable on any ground.
The argument that the appellant is estopped to challenge the said order is again not tenable. Though it is asserted that the appellant was not aware of the fact that the Members have signed the order, but the fact remains that the equitable principle of estoppel cannot be applied in a case where a conclusive order has been passed by a statutory authority. An order thus passed by subsequent Bench cannot be permitted to be upheld on the equitable doctrine of estoppel.
Consequently, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the order of the Tribunal dated April 4, 2011 could not be set aside, reviewed or recalled in any manner on administrative side by way of mechanism of constitution of fresh Tribunal.
-
2013 (2) TMI 654
Issues involved: Refund of commercial tax on high speed diesel purchase u/s Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
Summary:
The petitioner, a public limited company, sought a refund of Rs. 25,34,173 commercial tax on high speed diesel purchase, claiming exemption under Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The company had an eligibility certificate for tax exemption from March 28, 1997 to March 27, 2008. Despite this, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 charged tax on diesel purchases. The petitioner applied for a refund to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, but the request was redirected to the Sales Tax Department. The Commissioner rejected the representation for refund. The petitioner had paid tax on diesel purchases, which respondent Nos. 5 and 6 remitted to the State. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 argued that they were not liable to refund the tax as they had paid it to the State.
In a previous case, it was established that the company was entitled to tax exemption on diesel used for in-house consumption. The petitioner had paid tax to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for in-house consumption, and they had remitted the tax to the State as per instructions from the Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a refund from the State. The court directed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to refund the amount of Rs. 25,34,173 to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
2013 (2) TMI 653
Issues Involved:
- Assessment of tax liability u/s 28 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 based on false declaration of exemption.
The judgment addresses the case where the petitioner, engaged in manufacturing craft papers, claimed exemption from tax on sales to M/s. Quality Industry and M/s. Vindhya Corrugators, despite their exemption periods having expired. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a tax and penalty on the petitioner under section 28 of the Act of 1994 for under-assessment. The petitioner's revision was also dismissed.
The counsel argued that the tax liability lies with M/s. Quality Industry and M/s. Vindhya Corrugators, not the petitioner. However, it was established that the petitioner benefited from tax exemption based on false declarations regarding sales to the aforementioned entities, whose exemption periods had ended.
The judgment highlights that under section 28 of the Act of 1994, authorities can impose tax and penalty if there is under-assessment or escape from assessment of taxable transactions. Given the petitioner's false declaration to claim tax exemption, the imposition of tax and penalty was deemed appropriate by the court, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
-
2013 (2) TMI 652
Garnishee order challenged - Held that:- No statutory basis for the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated March 11, 1996 and are of the view that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the said circular and thereby restrict or interfere with the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the revisional authorities. Therefore it would have been just and proper for the second respondent to await the disposal of the revision petitions by the fourth respondent before initiating proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax and penalty. His action in recovering the amounts pending disposal of the revision petitions before the fourth respondent has made the said revisions infructuous. We strongly deprecate this conduct of the second respondent and hold the same to be arbitrary and high-handed.
Set aside the impugned garnishee notice dated December 7, 2012, issued by the second respondent; direct the second respondent to immediately remit the sum of ₹ 25,86,668 to the bank account of the petitioner in the fifth respondent-bank; set aside the non-speaking orders dated May 22, 2012 and June 7, 2012 passed by the third respondent rejecting the stay applications filed by the petitioner in the appeals challenging the orders of assessments and penalty; and direct the third respondent to pass fresh and reasoned orders on the applications within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2013 (2) TMI 651
Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order based on lack of valid authorization and merits of assessment order.
The judgment addresses the challenge to an assessment order dated June 19, 2012 for the tax period February 1, 2009 to March 31, 2011. The order was upheld in appeal by the third respondent. The petitioner questioned the assessment order on the grounds of lack of valid authorization and the merits of the assessment order. The Deputy Commissioner had issued a conditional authorization for assessment in case of under-declaration of turnover, but the assessment order was not invalidated by the appellate authority despite this conditional authorization.
The primary issue addressed by the court was the validity of the authorization for assessment dated January 21, 2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. The court noted that the authorization failed to explicitly record the Deputy Commissioner's satisfaction regarding the under-declaration of turnover. Instead, it delegated this satisfaction to the assessing authority, which was deemed unsustainable. The court cited legal precedent to emphasize that public orders must derive their vitality from their content, and errors cannot be rectified by reference to antecedent material on record. Therefore, the authorization for assessment was deemed unsustainable, leading to the quashing of the assessment order and its confirmation by the appellate authority.
The court ultimately allowed the writ petition, quashed the assessment orders, and directed that a fresh order of assessment be passed by the duly authorized officer in accordance with the law. The judgment highlights the importance of proper authorization and adherence to legal principles in the assessment process to ensure the validity of tax assessments.
-
2013 (2) TMI 650
Failure to make assessment within the extended period - Held that:- In the facts of the instant case, the petitioner has been indisputably deprived of a reasonable opportunity of hearing which was a sine qua non for compliance of principles of natural justice and was expected from the assessing authority before taking its decision which may have an adverse consequences and the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner-assessee, in the opinion of this court, cannot be held to be effective remedy in the eye of law. The honourable Supreme Court in Whirlpool case [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] has carved out three exceptions where the equitable jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked and one of the contingency referred to is the violation of principles of natural justice. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2013 (2) TMI 649
Levy of penalty imposed under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that:- The order passed by the Tax Board, Ajmer, is quite justified and the Board had rightly affirmed the order and there is no perversity in the order of Tax Board, whereby the penalty deleted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), against the respondent was sustained.
-
2013 (2) TMI 648
Compounding - whether Section 8(f)(ii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act which authorised cancellation of the permission granted for payment of tax at compounded rates from suffer any unconstitutionality?
Held that:- The assessee having voluntarily opted for the compounding, fully knowing the conditions that are attached to the scheme, cannot thereafter contend that the conditions are illegal and he is estopped from doing so. Further, petitioner could not satisfy me that the condition that is incorporated by the Legislature suffer from anyone of the limitations, including those of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), rendering the provision unconstitutional. If that be so, this contention of the counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance.
Admittedly, the issue in question pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The amendment to the section was only with effect from 1.4.2011. If that be so, the petitioner cannot contend that the respondents could not have relied on this power for the assessment year 2010-11
Section 8(f)(iii) provides for appellate remedy against orders issued under Section 8(f)(ii). Similarly, the assessment order passed against the petitioner, which is only consequential, is also appealable as provided under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, while uphold the constitutional validity of Section 8(f)(ii), decline to examine the validity of the impugned orders on the other factual grounds urged by the petitioner and leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate statutory appellate authority.
-
2013 (2) TMI 647
Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal, challenge to assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act, production of form F for branch transfers outside State.
Delay in filing appeal: The court condoned the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application.
Challenge to assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act: The appellant challenged the assessment order which imposed a tax demand of Rs. 15,79,459 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer had claimed branch transfers outside the State of Rs. 72,61,876.70, but in the absence of form F, the order was treated as a sale without C forms and taxed at 12.5%.
Production of form F for branch transfers outside State: The appellant sought to produce form F for seeking the benefit of branch transfers outside the State under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court referred to a previous case where the assessing authority was directed to assess the genuineness of documents/forms in question and pass an appropriate order if the documents were found to be fabricated.
Judgment: The court set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), and Haryana Tax Tribunal. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority with liberty for the dealer to produce form F amounting to Rs. 72,61,876.70. The Assessing Authority was instructed to examine the documents and grant the benefit of branch transfers if found genuine. However, if the documents were fabricated, the dealer would be penalized as per provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act.
-
2013 (2) TMI 646
Interest on belated refund - Held that:- The fact that the respondents have failed to remit the interest component to the petitioner, an instrumentality of the State even after this writ petition is filed sensitizing the respondents of their statutory obligations under the provisions of section 33F signals a sad state of ambivalence and dithering on the part of the respondents in issuing orders of refund along with interest statutorily mandated, a conduct to be deprecated.
Thus the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of refund due and credited to the petitioner, i.e., ₹ 15,40,07,843 for the period July 26, 2004 to November 15, 2011.
-
2013 (2) TMI 645
Optional service charges at ₹ 200 per refrigerator - whether would not form part of taxable sale price in the hands of respondent-assessee? - Held that:- Charge levied by the assessee at the time of the sale was not universal but optional. Following this finding the legal consequences would be inexorable and entail exclusion of such charges from the ambit of sale price of the goods sold exigible to tax in view of the judgments of this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Godrej G.E. Appliances Limited [2011 (3) TMI 1548 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as also Commercial Taxes Officer v. Weston Electroniks Ltd. [1991 (11) TMI 225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 87 STC 522 (Raj). W.P.dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 644
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the violation of sections 76(2), 76(2)(c), and 76(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as well as the imposition of penalty under section 76(9) on the driver of the vehicle.
Violation of Sections 76(2), 76(2)(c), and 76(2)(b):
The case involved a vehicle where the goods did not tally with the submitted documents, leading to a notice being served on the owner for violating sections 76(2), 76(2)(c), and 76(2)(b) of the Act, 2003. The owner applied for composition of the offense under section 76(6), and the alleged offense was compounded under section 62 of the Act, resulting in a payment of &8377;1,80,565. The Deputy Commissioner Appeals observed that the offense had been compounded, and further action against the driver for violating section 76(9) was deemed unjustifiable.
Imposition of Penalty under Section 76(9) on the Driver:
The Deputy Commissioner Appeals and the Tax Board found that once the offense committed by the owner was compounded under section 68 of the Act, there was no basis for imposing a penalty on the driver under section 76(9). The court agreed with this assessment, stating that penalizing the driver for actions related to the vehicle in question was not sustainable. The court noted that revisions under section 84 could be entertained by the High Court only if a question of law was involved, and in this case, no such question arose.
Conclusion:
After considering the arguments, the court found no question of law in the revision petition and dismissed it for being devoid of merit. The court upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner Appeals and the Tax Board regarding the compounding of the offense by the owner and the unjustifiability of penalizing the driver for the same offense.
-
2013 (2) TMI 643
Issues involved:
The issue involves seeking direction for issuing a tax clearance certificate for a longer duration to enable the petitioner to transport goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.
Summary:
The petitioner, registered under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, engaged in the sale and supply of raw jute and oil-cake in inter-State trade, filed monthly returns and paid taxes on time. Despite being in compliance, tax clearance certificates were issued for only 10 to 15 days instead of the permissible four months as per a government circular. The petitioner argued that a longer duration was justified, as per the circular, and the shorter duration caused business difficulties without valid reasons. The State's argument of discretion was found lacking merit. The Court held that a certificate of less than one month could hinder business operations, and there was no prejudice to revenue by issuing certificates for a longer duration. The Court directed that certificates for the petitioner should normally be issued for one month unless specific reasons were provided in writing for a shorter duration. The petition was disposed of.
............
|
9911796707
