|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 5404 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 583
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals under A.P. General Sales Tax Act.
2. Condonation of delay by the appellate authority.
3. Justification for condoning long delay.
4. Legal justification for preferring appeals belatedly.
5. Legality of condoning delay by the appellate authority.
6. Applicability of legal precedents in the case.
7. Legal consequences of delay in filing appeals.
8. Decision on specific appeal numbers.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves appeals filed by an assessee under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act regarding the sales turnover of wires drawn from tax-suffered wire rods for assessment years ranging from 1983-84 to 1991-92.
2. The appeals were significantly delayed, with the appellate authority condoning the delay after hearing arguments of counsel, but the petitions for condonation of delay were filed later, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Telangana Steel Industries case as the reason for the delay.
3. The Commissioner revised and set aside the appellate order, questioning the justification for condoning the delay, especially since the tax burden was passed on to buyers. The judgment highlights the necessity for a reasoned order by the appellate authority when condoning delays.
4. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority must assess if the reasons given by the assessee constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals, failing which the orders passed become illegal. The Commissioner's revisional order was also set aside, directing a fresh consideration of the delay condonation issue.
5. The Court differentiated the present appeals from others, noting that unlike similar appellants, the current party did not contest the tax levy on wires earlier and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delayed appeals, leading to the dismissal of certain appeal numbers.
6. Legal precedents, such as the decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, were cited to establish that mere awareness of legal proceedings is insufficient to justify delayed appeals, especially when no mistake of law is evident.
7. The judgment analyzed the applicability of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venkataramana Chuduva & Muramura Merchant, emphasizing the need for a valid reason for not filing appeals promptly, which was found lacking in the current case, leading to the rejection of the appeals.
8. Specific appeal numbers were addressed individually, with some being dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause for delay, while others were allowed based on similar reasons as a previous batch of appeals, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the critical importance of timely filing of appeals under tax laws, requiring valid justifications for any delays, failing which the appellate orders may be deemed illegal and set aside.
-
1998 (12) TMI 582
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order levying tax on poultry feed turnover.
2. Applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 1055, Revenue, dated October 17, 1994.
3. Discrimination under Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgments in similar cases.
5. Relief sought by the petitioner.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Assessment Order:
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of poultry feed, challenged the assessment order dated March 23, 1998, which levied a tax of Rs. 3,28,832 on a turnover of Rs. 1,09,61,060. The assessment was based on the sale of poultry feed made from ingredients purchased outside the State, which had not suffered tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 1055, Revenue, dated October 17, 1994:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 1055, exempting tax on the sale of poultry feed manufactured out of ingredients that were either subject to tax or exempt from tax under the Act. The petitioner argued that this exemption should apply to poultry feed manufactured from ingredients imported from other States, which had not suffered tax under the Act. The final assessment order for 1994-95 subjected the turnover to tax at 4%, leading to the writ petition questioning the interpretation of the G.O.
3. Discrimination under Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court in Indian Cements Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that a similar G.O. was violative of Articles 301 to 304, and the same principle should apply here. The petitioner argued that there should be no discrimination between poultry feed manufactured from taxed ingredients within the State and those from untaxed ingredients imported from other States. The special counsel for the Revenue countered that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, which upheld the Government's power to exempt certain goods from tax.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgments:
The court examined several Supreme Court judgments:
- Indian Cement Ltd. Case: Held that reduced tax rates for locally manufactured cement products were violative of Articles 301 to 304.
- Video Electronics Case: Upheld the validity of exemption notifications for a limited period with specific conditions, distinguishing it from blanket exemptions.
- Shree Mahavir Oil Mills Case: Held that unconditional exemptions for local goods were discriminatory and violative of Article 304(a).
The court concluded that the impugned notification in the present case was a blanket exemption without valid reasons, similar to the Indian Cement and Shree Mahavir Oil Mills cases, and thus, discriminatory.
5. Relief Sought by the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not seek to quash the notification but to extend its benefits to poultry feed manufactured from ingredients imported from other States. The court referred to Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, where it was held that imported goods should not be taxed at a higher rate than local goods. Following this principle, the court directed the respondents to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 1055 to the poultry feed manufactured from imported ingredients.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the special appeals and writ petition, directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the impugned notification to the petitioner and issued a writ of mandamus accordingly. The petitioner was awarded costs, and the appeals and petition were allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 581
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of tax levy on the sale of wet grinders.
2. Determination of whether the sale of wet grinders constitutes a second sale or a first sale.
3. Interpretation of relevant entries in the TNGST Act regarding wet grinders.
4. Examination of whether the combination of grinder body and motor results in a new commercial commodity.
5. Consideration of relevant case laws and precedents.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Tax Levy on the Sale of Wet Grinders:
The petitioners challenged the order of assessment and the proposed levy of tax on the sale of wet grinders, arguing that these sales were second sales and thus not liable for tax. They contended that the grinder body and motor had already suffered tax when purchased separately from registered dealers within the state. The Tribunal, however, upheld the Revenue's position that the combination of these components resulted in a new commercial commodity, making the sale taxable.
2. Determination of Whether the Sale of Wet Grinders Constitutes a Second Sale or a First Sale:
The petitioners argued that the wet grinders were second sales since the components had already been taxed. The Tribunal noted that prior to 1992-93, such sales were treated as second sales and exempt from tax. However, from 1994-95 onwards, the Revenue began treating these sales as first sales and levied taxes accordingly. The Tribunal concluded that the combination of the grinder body and motor created a new commercial commodity, thus constituting a first sale.
3. Interpretation of Relevant Entries in the TNGST Act Regarding Wet Grinders:
The Tribunal examined the relevant entries in the TNGST Act, including Entry 41-E, Entry 11 of Part D, and Entry 65 of Part D of the First Schedule. The Tribunal noted that the description of wet grinders under these entries included grinders with or without motors. The Tribunal found that the statutory language indicated that the combination of the grinder body and motor into a usable wet grinder constituted a new commercial commodity, subject to tax.
4. Examination of Whether the Combination of Grinder Body and Motor Results in a New Commercial Commodity:
The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, including photographs of the wet grinders before and after assembly. The Tribunal concluded that the combination of the grinder body and motor resulted in a new commercial commodity, the usable wet grinder, which had a distinct character and use from its original components. The Tribunal held that this new commodity was taxable under the provisions of the TNGST Act.
5. Consideration of Relevant Case Laws and Precedents:
The Tribunal reviewed several case laws cited by both parties. The petitioners relied on decisions such as State of Tamil Nadu v. Suguna Agencies, Kumaran Paper Products v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers, which supported their argument that the combination of components did not result in a new commercial commodity. However, the Tribunal also considered decisions such as Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, and S. Durai v. Joint Commissioner (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras, which supported the Revenue's position that the combination of components created a new commercial commodity subject to tax. The Tribunal ultimately aligned with the latter decisions, affirming the tax levy on wet grinders.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the petitions, holding that the combination of the grinder body and motor resulted in a new commercial commodity, the wet grinder, which was subject to tax as a first sale under the TNGST Act. The Tribunal found no grounds to deviate from the established legal principles and precedents supporting the Revenue's position. The petitions were dismissed without costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 580
Title: Supreme Court of India Judgment Citation: 1998 (12) TMI 580 - SC Order Justices: Ruma Pal and Arun Kumar Decision: Tribunal's order upheld, civil appeals dismissed, no costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 579
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 2(n)(v) of the TNGST Act.
2. Applicability of TNGST (Fourth Amendment Act 28 of 1984) and related G.O.P. for the levy of sales tax on clubs.
3. Requirement for clubs to register as dealers under the TNGST Act.
4. Distinction between incorporated and unincorporated clubs regarding sales tax liability.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of Section 2(n)(v) of the TNGST Act:
The petitioners argued that Section 2(n)(v) of the TNGST Act, which authorizes the levy of tax on the supply of goods by clubs to their members, is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India. They contended that even after the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the levy of sales tax on incorporated clubs is not possible, as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in [1970] 26 STC 241 (Joint Commercial Tax Officer v. Young Men's Indian Association) still holds good. The Tribunal, however, held that the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent amendments to the TNGST Act, including Section 2(n)(v), are valid. The Tribunal concluded that the supply of goods by clubs to their members is deemed to be a sale and is subject to sales tax.
2. Applicability of TNGST (Fourth Amendment Act 28 of 1984) and related G.O.P. for the levy of sales tax on clubs:
The petitioners sought to declare the TNGST (Fourth Amendment Act 28 of 1984) and the related G.O.P. No. 198/CT & RE dated March 25, 1989, which prescribed rates of taxes on the supply of food and drinks by hotels and restaurants, as unconstitutional. The Tribunal held that the amendment and the G.O.P. are valid and applicable to the supply of goods by clubs to their members. The Tribunal noted that the amendments to the TNGST Act were made in pursuance of the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which expanded the definition of "sale" to include the supply of goods by clubs to their members.
3. Requirement for clubs to register as dealers under the TNGST Act:
The petitioners argued that they are not required to register as dealers under the TNGST Act, citing decisions of the Madras High Court in [1998] 108 STC 66 (Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras v. State of Tamil Nadu) and [1998] 108 STC 114 (Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Thirukkoil v. Commercial Tax Officer). The Tribunal held that these decisions are not applicable to clubs. The Tribunal emphasized that members' clubs, whether incorporated or unincorporated, are covered by the definition of dealers under Explanation (1) to Section 2(g) of the Act and are therefore required to register as dealers.
4. Distinction between incorporated and unincorporated clubs regarding sales tax liability:
The petitioners contended that incorporated clubs should not be liable for sales tax on the supply of goods to their members, distinguishing them from unincorporated clubs. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated clubs is no longer relevant after the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the amendments to the TNGST Act. The Tribunal noted that the supply of goods by any club, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to its members is deemed to be a sale and is subject to sales tax under Section 2(n)(v) and Section 2(n)(vi) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the petitions, holding that:
- Section 2(n)(v) of the TNGST Act and the related G.O.P. are valid and applicable.
- Members' clubs, whether incorporated or unincorporated, are required to register as dealers under the TNGST Act.
- The supply of goods by clubs to their members is deemed to be a sale and is subject to sales tax.
- The distinction between incorporated and unincorporated clubs regarding sales tax liability is no longer relevant after the Forty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the amendments to the TNGST Act.
-
1998 (12) TMI 578
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of amended provisions of section 13, RST Act based on the accounting period of the assessee.
2. Whether the amended provision was procedural law and its applicability to appeals filed after the amendment date.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Amended Provisions of Section 13, RST Act Based on the Accounting Period of the Assessee:
The core issue was whether the amended provisions of section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, which came into effect on April 22, 1988, applied only to cases where the accounting period of the assessee commenced from that date. The Tribunal examined the facts where the assessment order was made on April 28, 1988, after the amendment, for the periods October 25, 1984-November 12, 1985, and November 15, 1985-November 1, 1986. The appellate authority dismissed the dealer's appeal due to the absence of proof of payment of tax. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (Board) had initially held that the amendment could not be given retrospective effect and applied only to accounting periods commencing after April 22, 1988. The Tribunal referenced various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which emphasized that amendments affecting substantive rights are not retrospective unless explicitly stated.
2. Whether the Amended Provision Was Procedural Law and Its Applicability to Appeals Filed After the Amendment Date:
The Tribunal considered whether the amended provision was procedural, thus applicable to all cases where appeals were filed after April 22, 1988, regardless of the accounting period. The Tribunal highlighted the well-established rule that amendments are prospective unless explicitly or implicitly stated otherwise. The Tribunal examined three contingencies:
- When the assessment/accounting period, assessment order, and appeal filing predate the amendment but the appeal is pending.
- When the assessment/accounting period and assessment order predate the amendment but the appeal is filed post-amendment.
- When the assessment/accounting period predates the amendment, but the assessment order and appeal filing occur post-amendment.
In the third scenario, the Tribunal concluded that applying the amended provision would not amount to giving it retrospective effect. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hardeodas Jagannath v. State of Assam, where it was ruled that amendments apply to assessments and appeals filed after the amendment's effective date.
Conclusion and Judgment:
The Tribunal concluded that the amended provisions of section 13, RST Act, were not procedural law. The amended provisions applied to all cases where assessments were made and appeals filed after the amendment came into effect, regardless of the accounting period. The Tribunal overruled the Board's decision, holding that the dealer's appeal was correctly dismissed by the appellate authority for lack of proof of payment of tax. The application for revision was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Application allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 577
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of sales tax authority to impose adjournment costs.
Analysis:
The petitioner approached the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, for determining disputed questions, leading to an adjournment request on a specified hearing date. The petitioner challenged the imposition of costs for adjournment through a writ petition, arguing that the Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to levy such costs. The petitioner contended that sales tax authorities, not being courts, do not possess inherent powers like courts, such as dismissing cases in default, reviewing orders, or imposing adjournment costs. The petitioner highlighted alleged discriminatory practices in imposing costs based on which party requested the adjournment.
The primary issue revolved around whether a sales tax authority has the power to impose costs when adjourning a hearing due to a party's actions. The Court referred to various Supreme Court precedents, establishing that even in the absence of specific powers, quasi-judicial authorities possess inherent powers to ensure justice, prevent process abuse, and rectify mistakes. The Court emphasized that such powers are essential for effective functioning and are based on the rule of necessity. Precedents like J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and others were cited to support this principle.
The Court delved into the interpretation of statutory powers, citing cases like Mohammed Kunhi's case, which emphasized that when a jurisdiction is granted, necessary powers are implied for its effective execution. The Court highlighted that the term "determination" in Section 49 of the Act implies quasi-judicial jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner, requiring a fair hearing opportunity. Balancing the need for adjournments against abuse of process, the Court noted that adjournment costs can serve as a deterrent and compensate the opposing party for inconvenience. The power to impose adjournment costs was deemed incidental to the principal jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.
Referring to legal precedents like Ved Parkash v. Om Parkash and Official Liquidator v. Murlidhar S. Sharma, the Court affirmed that quasi-judicial authorities can devise their own procedures, including imposing costs for unjustified adjournments. However, the discretion to impose costs must be exercised reasonably and impartially to avoid vindictiveness or bias. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of matters while ensuring fair treatment to all parties involved.
In the specific case, where adjournment was sought due to the petitioner's counsel's indisposition and previous adjournments were not at the petitioner's instance, the Court found that the imposition of costs was not properly justified. Consequently, while recognizing the authority of the respondent to impose adjournment costs, the Court set aside the specific order imposing costs in this instance. The judgment concluded without awarding costs for the petition.
-
1998 (12) TMI 576
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Binding Nature of Supreme Court Judgments
3. Collection of Tax from Buyers
4. Legality of Appellate Authority's Order
5. Time-bar on Revision by Commissioner
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay:
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, questioning the condonation of long delays in filing appeals by the assessee. The appellate authority had condoned delays extending up to three years without detailed reasoning, merely stating "delay condoned and appeal admitted." The High Court criticized this approach as arbitrary and callous, emphasizing that the appellate authority must provide a reasoned order when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The High Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the condonation of delay applications and pass reasoned orders.
2. Binding Nature of Supreme Court Judgments:
The Commissioner attempted to revise the appellate authority's order based on a later Supreme Court decision in K.A.K. Anwar & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu, arguing it disapproved the earlier Telangana Steel Industries judgment. The High Court rejected this view, stating that the Commissioner is bound by the Supreme Court's decision in Telangana Steel Industries, which was directly relevant to the case. Ignoring this decision would negate the constitutional mandate under Article 141, which binds all authorities by the Supreme Court's pronouncements.
3. Collection of Tax from Buyers:
The Commissioner surmised that the assessee passed on the tax burden to buyers, despite the sale invoices not showing tax charged separately. The High Court found this reasoning speculative, as the Commissioner did not examine accounts or price structures to determine if tax was embedded in the prices. The High Court criticized the Commissioner's conclusion as lacking specific reasons and being based on mere assumptions.
4. Legality of Appellate Authority's Order:
The High Court identified a serious legal flaw in the appellate authority's order. The appellate authority had condoned delays and disposed of appeals on merits without proper reasoning. This failure to judiciously handle condonation of delay applications impacted the validity of the subsequent orders. The High Court set aside the appellate authority's orders and directed a de novo consideration of the condonation applications, emphasizing the need for a reasoned approach.
5. Time-bar on Revision by Commissioner:
The High Court addressed the issue of time-bar in the Commissioner's revision orders. Under Section 20(1) of the APGST Act, the Commissioner must exercise revisionary powers within four years from the date of service of the order. The Commissioner's orders dated July 31, 1998, exceeded this period. The High Court upheld the view that the final revision order must be passed within the four-year limit, aligning with the precedent set in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. The High Court dismissed the State's argument for reconsideration and allowed the special appeals on the ground of time-bar.
Separate Judgments:
- Special Appeal Nos. 35, 37, 40, 46, and 47 of 1998: The High Court allowed these appeals, setting aside both the Commissioner's and the appellate authority's orders, and remanded the cases for fresh disposal.
- Special Appeal Nos. 34, 42, 43, and 49 of 1998: These appeals, relating to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, were dismissed due to unwarranted condonation of delay by the appellate authority.
- Special Appeal Nos. 39, 41, 45, 53, and 54 of 1998: These appeals were allowed as the revision by the Commissioner was barred by time.
Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment meticulously addressed the issues of delay condonation, adherence to Supreme Court judgments, speculative conclusions on tax collection, and the legality of appellate orders. The judgment emphasized the need for reasoned and judicious decision-making by authorities and upheld the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and statutory time limits for revisions.
-
1998 (12) TMI 575
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Whether the transactions by the All India Skins and Hides Tanners and Merchants Association constitute a sale.
3. Applicability of the 46th Amendment to the Constitution on the definition of "sale."
4. Distinction between incorporated and unincorporated associations in the context of sales tax.
Detailed Analysis:
Constitutionality of Section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which deems the supply of goods by an unincorporated association or body of individuals to its members as a sale. The petitioners argued that this provision is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The court held that section 2(n)(v) is valid and aligns with the 46th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows states to levy sales tax on such transactions.
Whether the Transactions by the All India Skins and Hides Tanners and Merchants Association Constitute a Sale:
The court examined the "Pooled Consolidated Service Scheme to Members" operated by the All India Skins and Hides Tanners and Merchants Association. It was found that the association negotiates purchases, imports goods in its name, and distributes them to its members at a fixed price, including service charges. The court concluded that these transactions constitute a sale as they involve parties competent to contract, mutual assent, transfer of property, and a price paid or promised.
Applicability of the 46th Amendment to the Constitution on the Definition of "Sale":
The 46th Amendment to the Constitution inserted clause (29-A) to article 366, expanding the definition of "sale" to include the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment, or other valuable consideration. The court held that this amendment validates section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and thus, the transactions in question fall under the purview of sales tax.
Distinction Between Incorporated and Unincorporated Associations in the Context of Sales Tax:
The court discussed various judgments to determine the legal position of incorporated and unincorporated associations. It was noted that an incorporated association, such as a registered society, is a legal entity capable of holding property and entering into contracts. The court held that the supply of goods by such an association to its members for a price constitutes a sale. The court also clarified that the 46th Amendment and the amended sections of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act adequately cover both incorporated and unincorporated associations, making the distinction irrelevant for tax purposes.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is constitutional and valid. The transactions by the All India Skins and Hides Tanners and Merchants Association constitute a sale and are subject to sales tax. The 46th Amendment to the Constitution and the amended sections of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act adequately address the supply of goods by both incorporated and unincorporated associations to their members, making such transactions taxable.
-
1998 (12) TMI 574
Issues:
1. Validity of tax demand notice dated November 26, 1998.
2. Interpretation of section 19(2-C) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
3. Continuation of stay on disputed tax pending disposal of appeals.
4. Requirement of specific order for extension of stay by the Joint Commissioner.
5. Legality of tax recovery in absence of extended stay.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a tax demand notice dated November 26, 1998, demanding Rs. 3,81,636 for the year 1992-93 as illegal and violative of section 19(2-C) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The respondent contended that since no stay was in operation, the disputed tax was payable.
2. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1992-93, and after various appeals and orders, the tax liability was reduced to Rs. 3,81,636. The petitioner argued that the stay on tax payment should continue until the disposal of the second appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing section 19(2-C) of the Act.
3. The petitioner's appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was pending, and it was contended that the stay granted during the first appeal should automatically extend to the second appeal. However, the department argued that the stay under section 19(2-B) would not be operative during the second appeal unless specifically extended by the Joint Commissioner.
4. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the benefit of stay pending appeal, irrespective of the Joint Commissioner's extension under section 19(2-C). The court clarified that a specific order of extension by the Joint Commissioner was necessary for the stay to continue till the disposal of the second appeal.
5. The court held that without an extension of stay by the Joint Commissioner under section 19(2-C), there was no bar to tax recovery. The impugned demand notice was deemed legal, but the petitioner was given the option to apply for stay extension, with proceedings for recovery kept on hold for two weeks to facilitate the application process. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, subject to the mentioned observations.
-
1998 (12) TMI 573
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "purchase price" for the purpose of deduction under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of "purchase price" for deduction
The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal referred a question regarding the interpretation of "purchase price" under rule 42 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules. The rule provides for granting drawback, set-off, or refund of tax paid on goods used in manufacturing. The dispute arose over the deduction of 2% of the purchase price for calculating the aggregate amount eligible for drawback. The Revenue contended that the purchase price should include the tax element, while the assessee argued that only the actual purchase price should be considered for the deduction.
Issue 2: Tribunal's decision and reasoning
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the purchase price should include the purchase tax as well. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation. The Court emphasized that the term "purchase price" should not include any tax liability incurred by the purchaser after acquiring the goods. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions and highlighted that the rule does not envisage different sums for computing drawback and for deducting 2% from the aggregate amount. The Court also clarified that no notional grossed-up price should be assumed for inflating the purchase price.
Issue 3: Comparison with relevant case laws
The Court distinguished the cases cited by the Revenue, namely Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. National Plastic & Allied Industries. The Court explained that these cases dealt with different issues related to sales tax and the inclusion of tax in the sale price, which was not directly relevant to the current controversy over the interpretation of "purchase price" for deduction purposes.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the purchase price for the purpose of deduction under rule 42 should not include any tax liability borne by the purchaser. Therefore, the Court answered the referred question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of "purchase price" in the context of calculating deductions under the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970.
-
1998 (12) TMI 572
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal regarding the tax exemption of water pumps and diesel pumping sets as agricultural implements. The Tribunal found diesel pumping sets to be taxable as power-driven agricultural implements, and the Commissioner's application for rectification was rejected as the issue was debatable. The Tribunal's decision was upheld due to the finding being a matter of fact and the passage of time since the assessment year in question.
-
1998 (12) TMI 571
Issues Involved:
1. Power of the Trade Tax Tribunal to entertain disputes not arising from the first appellate order.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to challenge the assessment order in the second appeal.
3. Tribunal's power to enhance the assessment in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the department.
4. Scope of the Tribunal's powers under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Power of the Trade Tax Tribunal to entertain disputes not arising from the first appellate order:
The primary question of law was whether the Trade Tax Tribunal, while hearing a second appeal under section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, could entertain a dispute raised by the Commissioner that did not arise from the first appellate order. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain or deal with matters not covered by the first appellate order under section 9 of the Act. The Tribunal's powers are limited to addressing issues arising out of the first appellate order and cannot extend to matters not appealed against initially.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to challenge the assessment order in the second appeal:
The Commissioner of Trade Tax does not have the right to appeal against an assessment order under section 9 of the Act. The Commissioner can only revise the order using the powers under section 10-B. The appeal to the Tribunal under section 10(2) is restricted to challenging the order passed under section 9 and cannot revert to challenge the original assessment order. Hence, the Commissioner could not challenge the quantum of turnover determined by the assessing officer in the second appeal.
3. Tribunal's power to enhance the assessment in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the department:
The Tribunal's power to enhance the assessment is not a general power and can only be exercised if there is an appeal by the Commissioner against the reduction of the assessment by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal cannot enhance the assessment in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the department. This principle was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores, where it was held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment without an appeal by the department.
4. Scope of the Tribunal's powers under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act:
The Tribunal's powers are not as extensive as those of the first appellate authority under section 9. The first appellate authority has the jurisdiction to enhance the assessment even if the enhancement does not arise from the grounds of appeal. However, no such power is conferred on the Tribunal under section 10. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the matters dealt with in the appellate order under section 9 and does not extend to revisiting the original assessment order.
Conclusion:
The revision petitions were allowed, and the Tribunal's order dated October 13, 1997, was set aside. The Commissioner's appeals challenging the turnover determined by the assessing officer were dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal was directed to decide on other controversies arising out of the order under appeal. The revisionist was awarded costs of Rs. 3,000 from the respondent.
Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 570
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the petitioner-company for the sales tax arrears of the defaulter company.
2. Validity of the notice issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer for the recovery of sales tax arrears.
3. Transfer of ownership of the business and its implications under section 9 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
4. First charge on the property under section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of the petitioner-company for the sales tax arrears of the defaulter company:
The petitioner-company argued that it was not liable for the sales tax arrears of the defaulter company as there was no transfer of the entire business. The Tribunal, however, found that the petitioner-company had purchased the entire business, including land, building, plant, and machinery, through an auction conducted by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Corporation). The Tribunal emphasized that the transfer of the entire business, even if it was not operational at the time, made the petitioner-company liable for the sales tax arrears under section 9(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (RST Act).
2. Validity of the notice issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer for the recovery of sales tax arrears:
The petitioner-company challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, arguing that it was not liable for the defaulter company's arrears. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice, stating that the petitioner-company, having purchased the entire business, was liable for the sales tax arrears under section 9(1) of the RST Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Corporation had informed the petitioner-company about the conditions of the auction, which included the liability to clear dues of government departments.
3. Transfer of ownership of the business and its implications under section 9 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954:
The Tribunal examined section 9(1) of the RST Act, which states that when the ownership of the business of a dealer liable to pay tax is entirely transferred, the transferee is liable to pay the tax arrears. The Tribunal found that the petitioner-company had purchased the entire business of the defaulter company, including land, building, plant, and machinery, which constituted a transfer of the entire business. Consequently, the petitioner-company was liable for the sales tax arrears of the defaulter company.
4. First charge on the property under section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954:
The Tribunal also considered the provisions of section 11-AAAA of the RST Act, which states that any amount of tax, penalty, interest, and other sums payable by a dealer shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer. The Tribunal held that the sales tax arrears constituted the first charge on the property of the defaulter company, which had been transferred to the petitioner-company. Therefore, the petitioner-company was liable to clear the sales tax dues as the charge attached to the property irrespective of the transfer.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner-company was liable for the sales tax arrears of the defaulter company due to the transfer of the entire business and the first charge on the property under sections 9(1) and 11-AAAA of the RST Act. The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 569
The petitioner challenged a stay order directing payment of 50% disputed tax. The High Court quashed the stay order and directed the appeal to be disposed of within two months. Proceedings for tax recovery were stayed pending appeal. The judgment is reported as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Cross Field Rubbers [1999] 115 STC 577 (Ker).
-
1998 (12) TMI 568
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of total and taxable turnover.
2. Validity of registration and its renewal.
3. Imposition of higher rate of tax.
4. Levy of penalties under sections 12(3) and 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
5. Jurisdiction and authority of the Joint Commissioner in suo motu revision.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of Total and Taxable Turnover:
The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 7,00,923 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment year 1991-92. The assessing officer confirmed this turnover, categorizing Rs. 6,49,380 to be taxed at 4% and Rs. 51,543 at 10%. The inspection revealed discrepancies in the C forms, leading to different tax treatments for sales before and after registration.
2. Validity of Registration and Its Renewal:
The place of business was inspected on September 18, 1991, revealing that the assessee had not registered the business until the inspection date. The business was registered post-inspection under both the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellate authority held that the assessee cannot be treated as an unregistered dealer due to the payment of renewal fees and penalty, thus allowing concessional tax rates.
3. Imposition of Higher Rate of Tax:
The appellate authority set aside the higher rate of tax, directing the assessing officer to allow a concessional rate of 3% if the C forms were valid. However, the Joint Commissioner in suo motu revision concluded that the inspecting officers had no authority to accept registration fees with penalties post the due date, thus reinstating the original higher tax rate.
4. Levy of Penalties under Sections 12(3) and 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The assessing officer imposed penalties under section 12(3) for suppressed turnover and under section 12(5)(ii) for delayed submission of monthly returns. The appellate authority set aside the penalty under section 12(3) due to the absence of a best judgment assessment but upheld the penalty under section 12(5)(ii). The Joint Commissioner revised the penalties, reducing them to 50% of the tax lost as penalty under section 12(3).
5. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Joint Commissioner in Suo Motu Revision:
The Joint Commissioner exercised suo motu revision, concluding that the appellate authority erred in treating the assessee as a registered dealer based on the collection of registration fees with penalties. The revisional authority restored the original order of the assessing officer and adjusted the penalties accordingly.
Conclusion:
The High Court acknowledged that the assessee was a registered dealer but had failed to renew the registration for four years. The court upheld the Joint Commissioner's decision regarding the invalidity of post-due date registration fee collection. However, the court remanded the matter back to the revisional authority to reconsider the imposition of penalties under section 12(3) of the Act, emphasizing that such penalties should be based on whether the assessment was made to the best of the assessing officer's judgment or based on the books of accounts. The appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 567
The learned single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while non-suiting the appellant. It, therefore, appears appropriate to us to allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision of the regular second appeal and the cross objections on their own merits. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The RSA and cross objections are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 566
Issues:
- Requirement of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries for filing a Reference Application.
- Applicability of Supreme Court's directions in cases involving public sector undertakings or Central Government Departments.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a Reference Application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, raising a question of law from the Tribunal's Order. The Commissioner failed to produce a Certificate from the Committee of Secretaries, as directed by the Bench, citing that the respondents had already obtained clearance for their appeal. The learned SDR argued that once approval is granted for an appeal, it covers subsequent actions. However, the Tribunal observed that the Committee's clearance is mandatory as per the Supreme Court's directions in cases involving public sector undertakings or Central Government Departments.
2. The Tribunal rejected the argument that approval for hearing the appeal proper negates the need for a Certificate from the Committee. Citing the Supreme Court's directions, it emphasized that disputes involving the Central Government or specified bodies must be heard only after the Committee's clearance. The Court mandated that every Court and Tribunal demand such clearance, failing which proceedings cannot proceed. This requirement applies to all litigations, including Reference Applications, as they are considered separate litigations under the Court's direction.
3. The judgment highlighted a similar case where the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, was directed to produce a Certificate of Clearance from the Committee. This further solidified the Tribunal's stance on the necessity of obtaining clearance in matters involving public sector undertakings or Central Government Departments. Consequently, the Commissioner in the present case was directed to procure the required Certificate and the matter was adjourned to confirm its receipt.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of obtaining clearance from the Committee of Secretaries for filing Reference Applications in disputes involving public sector undertakings or Central Government Departments. It reiterates the strict adherence to the Supreme Court's directives, emphasizing the need for such clearance to proceed with legal actions, ensuring compliance with established procedures and protocols.
-
1998 (12) TMI 565
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed a duty demand on newsprint manufacturers for exceeding 5% rejects in 1989-90. The appellants were not eligible for exemption under Notifications 261/88 and 60/88. The demand was partly time-barred, and the duty amount was remanded for re-calculation within six months.
-
1998 (12) TMI 564
Issues Involved:
1. Claim of Exemption under Notification No. 171/67.
2. Invocation of Larger Period of Limitation.
3. Determination of 'Value' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Applicability of Retrospective Amendment to Section 4 by Finance Act, 1982.
5. Recalculation of Duty Liability and Consideration of Modvat Credit.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Claim of Exemption under Notification No. 171/67:
The appellants, manufacturers of footwear, claimed exemption under Notification 171/67, which initially exempted footwear valued up to Rs. 5/- per pair and was later amended to higher values. The department issued a show-cause notice alleging wrongful exemption claims, resulting in a loss of Rs. 13,81,134.88 in Central Excise Duty. The lower appellate authority confined the duty liability to the normal limitation period of six months, rejecting the invocation of the longer five-year limitation period.
2. Invocation of Larger Period of Limitation:
The department invoked the larger period of limitation of five years, alleging wilful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellants. However, the lower appellate authority did not find sufficient grounds for such allegations and limited the duty liability to the normal six-month period preceding the show-cause notice.
3. Determination of 'Value' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The core controversy was the determination of 'value' for exemption purposes. The revenue contended that the value under the exemption notification should be the wholesale price, inclusive of duty, as sold to wholesalers. The appellants argued that the 'value' should be determined under Section 4, which allows deduction of the duty element from the wholesale price. The Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, in earlier judgments, supported the appellants' view, stating that the assessable value should be determined first, and then the exemption should be considered.
4. Applicability of Retrospective Amendment to Section 4 by Finance Act, 1982:
The retrospective amendment to Section 4 by the Finance Act, 1982, introduced an explanation affecting the computation of 'value' for exemption purposes. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) applied this explanation to deny the exemption, arguing that the duty element should not be deducted if no duty is actually paid. The appellants contended that the amendment's intent was to address a different issue and should not affect their case, which was previously decided in their favor by the Supreme Court.
5. Recalculation of Duty Liability and Consideration of Modvat Credit:
The appellants argued that the wholesale prices collected from customers should be treated as cum-duty prices, and the duty element should be deducted to determine the assessable value. They also sought consideration of Modvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing the footwear. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the wholesale prices should be treated as cum-duty prices, and the duty element should be deducted to determine the assessable value. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to reconsider the quantum of duty, taking into account the appellants' submissions regarding Modvat credit and other relevant factors.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' plea that no duty liability exists based on the exemption notification but directed the lower authorities to reconsider the quantum of duty in light of the appellants' submissions regarding cum-duty prices and Modvat credit. The appeal was disposed of with directions for re-adjudication by the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.
........
|
9911796707
