Advanced Search Options
Landmark Cases - VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2829 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2019 (12) TMI 540
Levy of sales tax - Stock/ Branch Transfer of goods - inter-state sales or not - CST Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, before the Assessing Authority himself adequate proof of movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Kerala had been produced by the Assessee. In support of the branch transfer/ stock transfer made by the Assessee, the prescribed Form “F” were also furnished by the Assessee. No pre-concluded contract with the buyer was found in the record of the Assessing Authority. The mere presumption of the Assessing Authority without any documentary evidence that the goods have moved from Tamil Nadu to Kerala and Bangalore pursuant to some pre-existing contract is unfounded. Merely because the agent happened to sell the goods received from the Principal in Tamil Nadu on the same date of receipt of goods or on the very next day or any....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 1018
Attachment of mortgaged properties - first charge of the Bank over the properties mortgaged with the Petitioners - recovery of sales tax dues from the assets of the defaulter by State Government - SARFAESI Act - case of the writ applicants is that the Bank has the first charge over the properties mortgaged by M/s. M.M. Traders by virtue of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act - charge of the State Government under Section 48 of the Act overridden by Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Whether the Central Legislation would prevail over Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003? HELD THAT:- The plain reading of Section 48 of the VAT Act indicates that it starts with a non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force. Section 48 of the VAT Act creates first charge on the pro....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 788
Compliance with the pre-deposit - Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - power of State to enact Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act - inherent powers to grant interim protection against imposition of such a condition for hearing of appeals on merits - Whether the State is empowered to enact Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act? - HELD THAT:- In The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Others [1975 (1) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT], a Bench of four Judges of this Court considered inter alia, challenge to the validity of Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 as amended by Gujarat Act No.5 of 1970. As per the relevant provision, no appeal against the ratable value or tax would be entertained unless the amount claimed was deposited with the Commissioner. The proviso to said Section however empowered the ....... + More
- 2019 (7) TMI 589
Maintainability of appeal - pre- deposit or not - second proviso of Section 19 and proviso of Section 21 (2) of the APGST Act, 1957 or second proviso of Section 31 and proviso of Section 33 (2) of the AP VAT Act, 2005 - rejection of appeal on the ground that the appellant-assessee had failed to comply with the precondition of producing proof of payment of tax admitted to be due or of such installments as may have been granted and/or the proof of payment of twelve and a half percent (12.5%) of the difference of the tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the appellant for the relevant assessment year in respect of which the appeal has been preferred by the concerned appellant-assessee - proviso is not a provision of pre-deposit at the stage of filing, institution or presentation of the appeal as such; but is a provi....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 490
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining 'C' forms - CST Act 1956 - HELD THAT:- The is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Court in M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) [2018 (10) TMI 1529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that The respondents are directed to permit these petitioners to download 'C ' forms, as has been done in the past for the purpose of purchasing petroleum products against the issuance of 'C' declaration forms. Till such time the order of this court in the case of M/s Ramco Cements Ltd is either stayed or reversed it is incumbent upon all Assessing Authorities within the State of Tamil Nadu to apply the rationale of the decision ....... + More
- 2019 (2) TMI 924
Benefit of Rule 9(1)(e) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules denied - the goods in question were not specified in the original works contract, though according to the Tribunal, the goods were brought inside the State of U.P. by way of inter-state purchase for execution of the works contract by the assessee. Held that:- There is no dispute as to the fact that the assessee had been awarded and it had executed indivisible works contract. Also, the Tribunal recorded a specific finding that the assessee had made import of the goods only for the purpose of execution of and applied the goods to the works contract, in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the impugned order. In face of such finding it had to be accepted, the assessee had imported the goods only for the purpose of execution of the works contract and not for the purpose of any other business, trading or o....... + More
- 2019 (1) TMI 1557
Principles of Natural Justice - It is the specific case of the petitioner that the order of assessment has been passed by the second respondent without considering the schedule to the Act and no proper reasoning adduced for arriving the taxability in respect of the transaction of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The submission is not refuted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who fairly submitted that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration in line with the Schedule to the Act - the matter is remitted to the first respondent for passing appropriate orders, independently applying the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2018 (12) TMI 1279
Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 26 (6B)(c) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - retrospective effect of amendment - Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for want of deposit of 10% of the amount assessed, so as to give retrospective effect to the amendment introduced on 15.04.2017 to Section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002? Held that:- The assessment order concerning appellant for the financial year 201011 was passed on 30/10/2014, of which review proceedings were initiated on 13/4/2017, upon which review order was passed on 27/7/2017, which was challenged by way of appeal before Tribunal on 25/9/2017, which appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 22/2/2018 and before order of review was passed on 27/7/2017, Section 26(6B) of the Ac....... + More
- 2018 (11) TMI 1268
Limitation prescribed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for completion of penalty proceedings, under Section 45A and Section 67 of the respective enactments - Section 67 of the KVAT Act. Held that:- Obviously here, the notice was first issued long after the defalcation alleged by the DRI, was brought to the notice of the CTD. But the proceedings initiated by the DRI was pending and the CTD waited for the final result - If the notice has been delayed, as in the present case, where the proceedings were initiated by the DRI in 2006 and the same was concluded only in the year 2011 after which the CTD took out proceedings under Section 45A of the KGST Act and Section 67 of the KVAT Act, then necessarily it would have to be decided as to whether the offence alleged by the CTD was one dependent only on the proceedings initiated by the....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 1529
Denial of downloading and issuance of 'C' declaration forms - post GST situation - purchase of petroleum products at concessional rate - inter-state trade - Section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act, 1956 - Held that:- A registered dealer, who is holding a valid Certificate of Registration, which is in force, if satisfies the requirement contemplated under sub clause (3)(b) of Section 8, is entitled to pay the concessional tax, as provided under sub clause (1) of Section 8. There is no dispute to the fact that even after the introduction of GST, though several drastic amendments were made to CST Act, 1956, this particular provision of law viz., Section 8(3)(b) has not undergone any change. On the other hand, it is admitted by both sides that the said provision still holds the field. The crux of the contentions raised by the respondents to de....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 887
Input tax credit - set off against tax liability on all intra-state and inter-state sales - TNVAT Act - amendment in the law relating to the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods in the State of Tamil Nadu. Whether Section 19(5)(c) of TNVAT Act, 2006 and Rule 10(9)(a) of TNVAT Rules, 2007 are ultra vires the provision of CST Act, 1956? Whether the impugned provisions are violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(9) and 301 of the Constitution of India? Held that:- This Court held that ITC is a form of concession which is provided by the Act; it cannot be claimed as a matter of right but only in terms of the provisions of the statute; therefore, the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Section had to be fulfilled by the dealer; and subsection (20) of Section 19 was constitutionally valid. It was also noted, in the process, that there were va....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 814
Input tax credit - time limit for claiming credit - legality and validity of provision of Section 19(11) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - appellant contend that substantive and vested right of a registered dealer to claim Input Tax Credit cannot be curtailed and fettered by an unreasonable restriction imposed under Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 requiring claim to be made within 90 days from the date of purchase or before the end of the financial year whichever is later. Challenge to a fiscal legislation - principles of statutory interpretation of a fiscal legislation - Whether Section 19(11) violates Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? - Whether Section 19(11) is inconsistent to Section 3(3) of the Act? - Held that:- Input Tax Credit is being allowed under Section 3 which is provision on “levy o....... + More
- 2018 (9) TMI 1934
Correction of mistake in C-form - amount of purchase reflected in wrong column - HELD THAT:- The respondent shall release the C-Forms to enable the appropriate correction to be made for the relevant quarters. However, these directions shall remain suspended till the time SLP (C) 13928/2018 is pending and shall be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in that case. Petition disposed off.
- 2018 (8) TMI 1824
Refusal to issue Form-C - natural gas purchased by petitioner in the course of inter- state trade or commerce and used by it for the generation of electricity - HELD THAT:- There are no legal and valid ground for interference - SLP dismissed.
- 2018 (8) TMI 1160
Time Limitation - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - further amendment made by introduction of a proviso extending the time for completion of assessment first in the year 2010 and then regularly extended in the subsequent years - Held that:- Notices in all the cases coming under Group-A, were issued by the respective Assessing Authorities, after the expiry of 5 years from the last date of the assessment year. Later, there was a proviso introduced extending the period for completion of assessment till the end of the year. These amendments were made in the successive years after 2010, the benefit of which was claimed by learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for sustaining the notices issued - the action initiated by the Department after the period of limitation provided, by issuance of notices under Section 25(1) cannot be sustained. Intr....... + More
- 2018 (8) TMI 995
Entitlement to Interest on refund amount - relevant date for calculation of interest - pre-deposit of amount - Held that:- Pre-deposit sums which the assessee is compelled to pay to seek recourse to an appellate remedy, do not necessarily bear the stamp or character of tax, especially when it succeeds on the particular plea. That being the case, the insistence upon a procedural step, i.e. filing of a form which is purely for the purpose of administrative convenience cannot in any manner fix the period or periods of limitation when the amounts became due on the question of interest. The fact that the amounts were due and payable from the date the appeal was allowed is not in dispute. The postponement of the period from when interest became calculable is incomprehensive and illogical - the petitioner is entitled to interest calculable from the date when its appeal was allowed by this Court by order dated 14.05.2015. Petition allowed.
- 2018 (7) TMI 1861
Power to cancel the registration of C-Forms - Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Held that:- The issue is covered in the case of JAIN MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. [2016 (6) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that Where the cancellation of the registration and, consequently of the C-Form is sought to be done retrospectively, it would adversely affect the rights of bonafide sellers in other states who proceeded on the basis of the existence of valid CST registration of the purchasing dealer on the date of the inter-se sale. That outcome is not contemplated by the CST Act and the Rules thereunder. The orders cancelling C-forms retrospectively are hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed in part.
- 2018 (6) TMI 1633
Interest on refund u/s 54(1) (aa) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 - Indivisible Works Contract or not - erection and installation of air-conditioning plants - whether the activity undertaken by it falls under Entry No.5 of the said Notification dated 18.10.1993 issued under Section 55A of the erstwhile Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969? - applicable rate of tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the proceedings before the Tribunal were against the order passed by the first appellate authority levying/ charging tax at the rate of 15% against the claim of the Dealer at 5%. In the meantime and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, in another proceeding, including in the case of the very Dealer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Dealer shall be entitled to interest under Section 54(1)(aa) of the Gujarat Sales Ta....... + More
- 2018 (6) TMI 1241
Revision of returns - KVAT Act, 2003 - The assessee's application for revision was kept without any action and hence the assessee was before this Court - Held that:- The sole prohibition as available in the various Sections is only against revision of returns when the dealer has been proceeded against for a defalcation or offense. This is specifically to not enable a dealer who had by his contumacious conduct attempted evasion, to wriggle out of the consequences of penalty. When there is a penal proceeding initiated, permission of revision of return, incorporating such figures in the return, which would efface the offense thus absolving the dealer from the liability of penalty, is alone prohibited. The other provisions above referred, which permits revision of returns, are enabling provisions facilitating such revision on specified contin....... + More
- 2018 (6) TMI 1239
Jurisdiction - Validity of VAT Audit report - consequential notice issued calling upon the petitioner to produce records on a particular date - Challenge to the VAT Audit is on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, as the VAT Audit has been authorised by the Joint Commissioner and not the Commissioner - principle of delegates non potest delegate. Held that:- Mere usage of the expression authorised by the Joint Commissioner in his proceedings, does not mean that the Joint Commissioner has commenced the audit on his own accord. It has to be borne in mind that the statute uses the expression “order”, and does not use the expression “authorise”. Thus, what is required under Section 64(4) is an order of the Commissioner and if there is an order to the said effect, then authorisation of lower level officers, by officers subordinate to the....... + More