|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 678 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 621
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals without interference in the matter, condoned the delay, and kept the question of law open. (2007 (7) TMI 621 - SC)
-
2007 (7) TMI 620
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal as the Tribunal found the penalty enhancement to be arbitrary and within its discretion based on Sections 76 and 80. No question of law arose. No costs were awarded.
-
2007 (7) TMI 619
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Merits of the dismissal order and Tribunal's award.
3. Procedural irregularities in the domestic enquiry.
4. Entitlement to back wages.
Summary:
1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The appeal's maintainability was challenged on the grounds of being barred by law and lack of appropriate condonation. The Court found that the appeal against the order dated March 31, 1999, was delayed by 1636 days, and the appeal against the order dated January 11, 2000, was delayed by 1 day. The Division Bench had condoned the delay, making the appeal maintainable. The Court rejected the contention that the Division Bench, being a Co-ordinate Bench, was not competent to decide the issue afresh.
2. Merits of the Dismissal Order and Tribunal's Award:
The Tribunal quashed the dismissal order on the grounds that the workman was denied particulars and addresses of policyholders, original policy bags were not produced, no witness was examined by LIC, and the Presenting Officer acted as a witness. The Court found that the workman admitted the facts in his reply and prayed for mercy. The Tribunal's focus on procedural irregularities was deemed incorrect as the workman had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by these irregularities.
3. Procedural Irregularities in the Domestic Enquiry:
The Court examined whether the irregularities pointed out by the Tribunal were valid. It was found that the addresses of policyholders were known to the workman, and the policy bags were produced for inspection initially. The non-production of original policy bags and non-disclosure of addresses did not cause any prejudice to the workman. The Presenting Officer, being an employee of LIC, was entitled to give evidence, and there was no law precluding him from doing so.
4. Entitlement to Back Wages:
The Court held that the Tribunal was wrong in granting back wages as the workman did not work during the suspension period and was paid appropriate suspension allowance. The issue of back wages became irrelevant after quashing the Tribunal's award.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The award of the Tribunal was quashed, and the issue of back wages was deemed irrelevant. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 618
Benefit of sales tax exemption denied - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the orders of the lower authorities denying to the petitioner the benefit of sales tax exemption in terms of G.O. No. CI 140 SPC 93 dated July 12, 1993 read with the certificate of sales tax exemption dated October 10, 1995 granted by the District Industries Centre, Mysore, certifying sales tax exemption on the finished goods?
Held that:- We have to answer the finding recorded by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as erroneous in law and non-consideration of the same would vitiate the orders as the same are contrary to the Government order, notification and the certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Mysore, in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the abovesaid question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
In view of the undisputed facts and the certificate issued by the competent officer certifying that the assessee has been manufacturing the goods of turmeric powder by following certain manufacturing processes such as the roots of turmeric are boiled, dried, powdered and coloured. The above manufacturing processes involved in manufacture of turmeric powder, which is one of the spices different and distinct from the roots of turmeric. Therefore, we have to hold that there is a manufacturing process involved in manufacture of turmeric powder from roots of turmeric. This has been rightly certified by the certifying officer but not accepted by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal without assigning valid reasons. Therefore, the findings of the assessing authority, the appellate authority and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are not only erroneous but error in law. Therefore questions of law framed in this petition by the petitioner are also required to be answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2007 (7) TMI 617
Issues: Challenge to order for entry tax collection and refund, interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001, applicability of Division Bench judgment.
Analysis:
The writ petition was filed to challenge an order for the collection of entry tax and seek a refund. The petitioners, who are manufacturers of mild steel products, were made liable to pay entry tax for importing M.S. Ingots from other states. The respondent determined the purchase price of the ingots and collected tax accordingly. The petitioner argued that the impugned order contradicted a Division Bench judgment, which held the levy of entry tax as illegal and violative of the Constitution. The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged the Division Bench decision and agreed to set aside the impugned order. The court, following the Division Bench judgment, overturned the order for entry tax collection.
The Division Bench judgment in ITC Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu deemed the levy of entry tax on goods from other states and abroad as discriminatory and violative of constitutional provisions. It concluded that the entry tax was not compensatory in nature and was illegal. The court directed the quashing of demand and collection notices related to entry tax. The respondent, in this case, accepted the applicability of the Division Bench decision and agreed to set aside the impugned order. The court, in line with the Division Bench ruling, annulled the order for entry tax collection.
Regarding the refund of entry tax, the court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for refund and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The court did not award any costs in the matter. The judgment emphasized adherence to the law and principles established by the Division Bench decision, ensuring the proper application of legal provisions and constitutional safeguards in matters concerning entry tax collection and refund.
-
2007 (7) TMI 616
Issues:
Violation of rule 100 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Imposition of penalty by Assistant Commissioner - Justification of penalty imposition - Bona fide explanation for infringement - Lack of intention to evade tax.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner, a cement manufacturer, imported goods to West Bengal from their factory in another state. The petitioner took delivery of a consignment without presenting the way-bill for endorsement, contrary to the practice followed at the railway station. Subsequently, when the petitioner presented the way-bill for endorsement, the Assistant Commissioner refused, leading to the imposition of a penalty for infringement of rule 100 of the VAT Rules.
The Tribunal noted that although there was a technical violation as the way-bill was not presented before taking delivery, the petitioner had explained the infringement. It was emphasized that penalty imposition should be based on intentional infringement or an attempt to evade tax, which was not the case here. The documents provided by the petitioner demonstrated the absence of any intent to evade tax, and the Tribunal found the penalty imposition unwarranted and contrary to the purpose of penalty provisions.
The Tribunal highlighted that the sales tax authorities had allowed the practice of endorsing way-bills after delivery, and the petitioner had promptly presented the required documents for endorsement. The judgment emphasized the importance of stopping irregular practices but also stressed the need for prior warning before penalizing such infringements. In this case, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order imposing the penalty.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The judgment underscored the significance of considering the circumstances and intent behind rule infringements before imposing penalties, ensuring that penalties are justified and aligned with the purpose of the relevant provisions.
-
2007 (7) TMI 615
Realisation of the arrears of tax by attaching the bank accounts - Held that:- The cheque for ₹ 1,84,454 issued by the petitioner was dishonoured as early as on July 1, 2004 and that the petitioner should have realised their mistake and started paying the arrears of admitted tax to show their bona fide. Even thereafter, the petitioner had been continuously issuing cheques, ignoring the fact that prosecution can be launched against them under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner in fulfilling the statutory obligation.
Action taken by the respondent for realisation of the arrears of tax by attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner cannot be found fault with and there is no illegality. Equity cannot be extended to a person who has not only been evading to pay tax, but also issued cheques, knowing fully well that the same would be dishonoured. Moreover, in the pleadings, the petitioner has suppressed the details relating to the notices issued by the Department and also the cheques issued by them, which were subsequently dishonoured. I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, warranting interference.
-
2007 (7) TMI 614
Bogus C forms - Held that:- Verification of the C forms revealed that the seal said to have been affixed by the officials was found to be irrelevant, as it contained the words "Commercial Sales Tax Office" only, without mentioning the station of the assessing officer and it was proposed to disallow the exemption sought for by the petitioner. He further submitted that the C forms were submitted only by the petitioner and not recovered from any third party or from other dealer. Therefore, the issue of verifying the source for obtaining the xerox copy of C forms does not arise and hence the prayer in the writ petition is not maintainable.
In the present case, C forms were actually produced by the petitioner and they are not recovered or obtained from any other person. Therefore, when the petitioner themselves are the source of the documents there is no need to summon any third party so as to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them. Thus the request of the petitioner to invoke section 54A of the TNGST Act insofar as the C forms mentioned in the show-cause notice dated April 18, 2007, is concerned, it is not maintainable.
-
2007 (7) TMI 613
Issues:
Challenge to order of assessment under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; Refusal to entertain appeal due to alleged limitation period violation.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in PVC pipes, tubes, and fittings, declared a total and taxable turnover for the assessment year 2004-05. The first respondent initially passed an order of assessment without considering a payment made by the petitioner, leading to a revised order being issued on August 21, 2006. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) VI, Chennai, within thirty days of receiving the revised order. However, the appeal was returned, requesting the petitioner to resubmit along with 25% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition.
The disputed tax amount was Rs. 9,38,400, with a penalty of Rs. 9,34,102. The petitioner, in the appeal memorandum, submitted the revised assessment order and made a payment of Rs. 3,11,365 as 25% of the disputed tax amount. The appeal was rejected by the second respondent on the grounds of being time-barred, as the pre-deposit was made beyond thirty days from the original assessment order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the appeal.
The petitioner argued that since the original order was modified and merged into the revised order, the appeal should be considered timely from the date of the revised order, not the original one. The High Court agreed, stating that once a revised order is issued, the earlier order ceases to exist, and the limitation for filing the appeal should be calculated from the date of the revised order. Therefore, the refusal to entertain the appeal based on limitation was deemed erroneous.
Consequently, the High Court directed the second respondent to entertain the appeal and make a decision on its merits within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 612
Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued by Trade Tax Department to petitioner for further details.
2. Obligations of city booking agency and railways in delivering goods to consignees.
3. Lack of evidence supporting foul play by the petitioner.
4. Decision on the validity of the impugned notice and its quashing.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case pertains to the validity of the notice issued by the Trade Tax Department to the petitioner, a city booking agency, requiring further details about consignees of goods released by the petitioner. The petitioner complied by providing consignees' addresses as mentioned in goods receipts. However, upon verification, the Trade Tax Department found discrepancies in consignees' actual locations, leading to the notice for additional information failing which the petitioner would be treated as the importer of taxable goods.
2. The petitioner defended that both the city booking agency and railways are not obligated to physically verify consignees' addresses, as goods are typically released at designated locations like railway stations or agency offices to individuals presenting the goods receipt. The judgment highlighted the normal procedures followed by the railways and city booking agencies in releasing goods, emphasizing that the absence of consignees at recorded addresses does not inherently imply foul play on the petitioner's part.
3. Notably, the judgment pointed out the lack of any other incriminating evidence beyond consignees' unavailability at recorded addresses to support the Trade Tax Department's conclusion of potential wrongdoing by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence before drawing such conclusions, indicating the need for a more robust basis to sustain the impugned notice.
4. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned notice dated September 1, 1999. The judgment suggested alternative measures for the Trade Tax Department to enhance checks, such as establishing check-posts at city booking agencies akin to those at railway stations or requiring consignors to provide address proofs of consignees during goods booking to prevent similar issues in the future.
-
2007 (7) TMI 611
Cognizance under section 49(1)(g) and (h) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - Held that:- The prosecution of the petitioner is out and out misuse of process of the court.No case for prosecution under provision of the Bihar Finance Act has been made out.
Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding in question is hereby quashed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 610
notice issued under section 15A(1)(l)of the U.P. Act - Penalty imposed - Held that:- There is no period of limitation prescribed for levying the penalty under the Act. The plea is founded on the basis of unreasonable delay, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and can more appropriately be gone into by the authority concerned under the Act.
In view of the foregoing discussion we are not inclined to interfere with the show-cause notice in exercise of our jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and leaving it open to the petitioner to file its reply before the assessing authority-respondent No. 2 raising all such points as are available to it under law. The assessing authority-respondent No. 2 shall take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
-
2007 (7) TMI 609
Income escapement - suo motu revision - Held that:- It is clear that the period of limitation at that point of time was only 36 months, i.e., three years. The period of three years from 1978-79 has expired much prior to 1983 when the proceeding was suo motu initiated. The notice for initiating a suo motu revision was issued on March 1, 1985.
It is also not in dispute that by way of amendment to section 12(8) the period of 36 months has been substituted by five years and the said provision has come into effect in 1983 by section 9(c) of the Act 23 of 1983 and the said amendment is also prospective. We, therefore, hold that at the time of issuing the notice for initiation of suo motu revision the limitation of 36 months was in force. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue also fails. W.P. allowed. Set aside the notice for initiating suo motu revision.
-
2007 (7) TMI 608
Issues Involved:
1. Liability to entry tax for coal brought into local areas for weighment.
2. Completion of sale and liability to entry tax.
3. Validity of penalty u/s 7(5) of the Entry Tax Act.
4. Levy of penalty on sales to registered dealers.
5. Levy of penalty on sales to the Defence Department.
6. Levy of penalty on sales to new industries and manufacturers of tax-free goods.
Summary:
1. Liability to Entry Tax for Coal Brought into Local Areas for Weighment:
The court addressed whether the petitioner was liable to entry tax for causing entry of coal into local areas solely for weighment. It was held that "liability to pay the entry tax under the Act arises only if entry of goods into the local area is for consumption or use or sale in the local area." Since the coal was brought into the local area only for weighment and not for consumption, use, or sale, no entry tax was payable. The court referenced the decision in *Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.* and the Supreme Court's ruling in *Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal & Co.* to support this view.
2. Completion of Sale and Liability to Entry Tax:
The court determined that the sale was complete when the delivery was given to the purchaser's agent at the pit mouth or at the weighbridge after weighment. Since the coal was not sold for use or consumption in the local area and was taken out soon after weighment, the dealer was not liable to entry tax.
3. Validity of Penalty u/s 7(5) of the Entry Tax Act:
The court examined the penalty imposed u/s 7(5) of the Act for failing to endorse a certificate on the sale bills. It was noted that the presumption of facilitating evasion of entry tax is rebuttable. The Supreme Court in *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals* held that the presumption can be rebutted if the dealer provides satisfactory evidence.
4. Levy of Penalty on Sales to Registered Dealers:
The court found that the penalty was not leviable when registered dealers certified that entry tax was paid on the goods purchased. The presumption of facilitating evasion of entry tax was rebutted by the evidence provided by the petitioner.
5. Levy of Penalty on Sales to the Defence Department:
The court held that the Defence Department is not a "dealer" as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Therefore, sales to the Defence Department were not covered by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 of the Act, and no penalty could be levied.
6. Levy of Penalty on Sales to New Industries and Manufacturers of Tax-Free Goods:
The court upheld the levy of penalty on sales to new industries and manufacturers of tax-free goods. The petitioner failed to produce eligibility certificates or declarations to prove that these industries were exempt from entry tax, thereby not rebutting the presumption of facilitating evasion of entry tax.
Disposition:
The reference application was disposed of with the court answering the questions in favor of the petitioner on some points and in favor of the respondent on others.
-
2007 (7) TMI 607
Issues:
1. Writ petition seeking mandamus for refund adjustment.
2. Interpretation of Section 33A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
3. Application for refund within the specified time limit.
4. Court's decision on adjustment or refund of excess amount.
Issue 1: Writ petition seeking mandamus for refund adjustment
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the first respondent to adjust or refund an amount of Rs. 19,65,670 due for the assessment year 1995-96. The petitioner had paid the amounts as sales tax, and the respondents acknowledged the refund entitlement of Rs. 19,65,672 to the petitioner.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 33A of the Act
Section 33A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, mandates that every claim for refund must be made within three years from the specified date. The court referred to precedents where similar provisions in other state Acts were upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in the present case, the court did not delve into whether the department could refuse refunds for applications made beyond the stipulated three-year period.
Issue 3: Application for refund within the specified time limit
The petitioner argued that since an amount of Rs. 19,65,671 was ordered to be adjusted and a nominal sum of Re. 1 was to be refunded upon treasury contact, there was no need for a formal application for refund. The court noted that the petitioner had no objection to the adjustment and was not aggrieved by the order, thus rendering Section 33A inapplicable in this scenario.
Issue 4: Court's decision on adjustment or refund of excess amount
The court found that despite the initial order for adjustment and refund, the respondents had neither adjusted nor refunded the amount to the petitioner, leading to the filing of the writ petition. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the adjustment or refund of the amounts along with interest within eight weeks. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply for actual refund upon the respondents' order within the stipulated time frame.
The rule nisi was made absolute, ensuring the resolution of the refund issue in favor of the petitioner.
-
2007 (7) TMI 606
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 regarding the liability of a surety for a dealer's tax arrears.
2. Validity of the demand notice issued to the surety for the dealer's tax arrears.
3. Rights and liabilities of a surety under the Sales Tax Act.
Interpretation of Rule 6 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963:
The case involved the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, concerning the liability of a surety for a dealer's tax arrears. Rule 6(1) mandates that a dealer may be directed to furnish security not exceeding one half of the tax payable on the turnover for the year. The security can be in various forms as specified in sub-rules (2) of Rule 6. The court clarified that the surety's liability is determined by the bond executed, not by Rule 6(1). The security bond remains in force as long as the dealer's registration certificate is valid, enforceable in case of tax default by the dealer. The surety has no right to challenge the authority's direction under Rule 6(1) as it is a matter between the authority and the dealer.
Validity of Demand Notice and Surety's Rights:
The appellant, a surety for a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, challenged the demand notice issued against him for the dealer's tax arrears. The appellant argued that his liability should not exceed one half of the tax payable by the dealer or the sum assured in the bond. However, the court held that the liability of the surety is as per the bond executed, not limited by the dealer's tax liability. The court emphasized that the surety's liability is independent of the dealer's obligations under Rule 6. The surety's rights and liabilities are governed by the terms of the bond and Rule 6(3), ensuring the security remains in force during the dealer's registration.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the demand notice and the surety's liability as per the bond executed. The appellant's contention that his liability should be linked to the dealer's tax liability was deemed unfounded and contrary to Rule 6 of the Rules. The court clarified that the surety's obligations are determined by the bond, not by the dealer's tax liabilities. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision, and the appellant was denied any relief in this matter.
-
2007 (7) TMI 605
Issues involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding the tax liability on sales made by an assessee to dealers in different states, as well as the obligation of the dealers to move goods outside the state of Delhi.
Interpretation of Central Sales Tax Act:
The court addressed three questions of law referred by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first question concerned whether sales made to specific dealers were in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The court answered this question affirmatively, stating that the sales attracted Central sales tax. The second question, regarding the onus of proof on the petitioner-dealer, was not pressed and therefore not answered. The third question became irrelevant as the Tribunal had already granted the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary declarations.
Facts of the Case:
The assessee sold chemicals in Delhi to distributors for sale in other states. The Tribunal concluded that these sales were inter-State transactions, attracting Central sales tax. The dealers were obligated to move the goods outside Delhi as per the terms of the contract, and failure to do so resulted in penalties.
Legal Analysis:
The court referred to Supreme Court judgments to establish that sales are considered inter-State when goods are required to be moved to another state as part of the contract. The terms of the contract between the assessee and the dealers clearly indicated that goods were to be transported outside Delhi, making the sales inter-State transactions.
Application of Central Sales Tax Act:
The court analyzed Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, emphasizing that a sale is deemed inter-State if it occasions the movement of goods from one state to another. The court cited previous Supreme Court decisions to support the interpretation that the movement of goods must be a result of the contract of sale to qualify as an inter-State sale.
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the sales made by the assessee to its dealers were inter-State transactions liable for Central sales tax. The assessee was given the opportunity to provide evidence to show that certain goods were locally sold, and further proceedings were scheduled before the assessing authority.
Disposition of References:
All references were disposed of based on the judgment in the primary case, providing clarity on the tax liability of the assessee for inter-State sales made to its dealers.
-
2007 (7) TMI 604
Whether the dealer who purchases P.V.C. pipes in circumstances in which no sales tax was charged under section 5, is liable to pay tax on the said purchase price under section 5A of the Act, because the sale of PVC pipes is exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of a notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under section 10 of the Act?
-
2007 (7) TMI 603
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court
2. Maintainability of the Suit without Notice under Section 80 CPC
3. Entitlement to Relief of Declaration and Mandatory Injunction
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the specific bar under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The lower appellate court concurred, noting that the plaintiff should have sought remedy through a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 33 of the Act. The court emphasized that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provided an efficacious remedy for challenging adverse orders and that the civil court could not override this statutory framework. Consequently, the lower appellate court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court.
2. Maintainability of the Suit without Notice under Section 80 CPC:
The second issue was whether the suit was maintainable without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The lower appellate court found that the trial court's decision to dispense with the notice under Section 80(2) CPC was not germane to the case. The court held that the plaintiff had not exhausted the alternative remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, making the suit premature. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the plaintiff should have pursued the statutory remedies before approaching the civil court.
3. Entitlement to Relief of Declaration and Mandatory Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the notices dated March 23, 1993, were illegal and arbitrary and a mandatory injunction to release the seized lorries and goods. The trial court had initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the goods were in transit to Kerala and not subject to Tamil Nadu sales tax. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the bona fide nature of the transportation. The court noted that the defendants had presented substantial evidence indicating tax evasion. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the impugned notices were show cause notices and that the plaintiff had an efficacious alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the second appeals, affirming the lower appellate court's decision that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that the plaintiff should have sought remedies under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy and the premature nature of the suits filed by the plaintiff.
-
2007 (7) TMI 602
Issues:
Challenge to sales tax assessment orders including activation charges for cellular mobile telephone service under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a company providing cellular mobile telephone services in Haryana, challenged sales tax assessment orders including activation charges for assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The petitioner argued that cellular mobile telephone service is not goods under section 2(f) of the Act and providing the service does not constitute a sale under section 2(l) of the Act. The petitioner also sought a declaration that sections 2(f) and 2(l) of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution. The matter was adjourned by the court awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India clarified that electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies are not considered "goods" under relevant legislation. The Court held that goods in telecommunication are limited to handsets supplied by service providers, leaving the issue of SIM cards open for determination by assessing authorities. The Court also addressed the nature of transactions involving telephone connections as composite contracts of service and sale, allowing states to tax the sale element if discernible. The judgment emphasized that the value of services cannot be included in the sale of goods or vice versa under the aspect theory.
Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the High Court determined that activation charges do not constitute goods and, therefore, are not assessable to sales tax. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned assessment orders that included activation charges for computing sales tax. The petitioner was directed to seek a refund of the amount from the respondents in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
............
|
9911796707
