|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 782 Records
-
2007 (3) TMI 695
Issues:
1. Validity of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on turnover classification and penalty imposition.
2. Interpretation of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding stock transfers.
3. Burden of proof on the dealer in proving movement of goods.
4. Imposition of penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision confirming the turnover classification as inter-State sale and penalty imposition. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the form "F" declarations filed by the petitioner, indicating false information regarding the nature of goods transferred. The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented, including records showing inconsistencies between the goods transferred and the corresponding invoices. As a result, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the lack of grounds for interference.
2. The court examined the relevance of previous judgments in similar cases to the present dispute. It highlighted the importance of form "F" in proving the movement of goods and the burden of proof on the dealer to establish that the goods' movement was not solely due to a sale. The court emphasized that false particulars in form "F" could lead to transactions being treated as deemed sales. In this case, the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence of false declarations in form "F," leading to the rejection of the petitioner's claims.
3. Regarding the interpretation of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the court emphasized the significance of form "F" in demonstrating the movement of goods. The court stressed that the details provided in form "F" must accurately reflect the nature of the goods transferred. In this instance, the discrepancies between the goods listed in form "F" and the actual goods transferred were a crucial factor in the Tribunal's decision.
4. The court addressed the imposition of penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in conjunction with section 9(2A) of the CST Act. It noted that the petitioner had claimed exemption for stock transfers by filing false declarations in form "F." The court highlighted the discretionary and equitable nature of exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that equitable orders are contingent on the petitioner approaching the court with equity, which was lacking in this case. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions without costs based on the petitioner's lack of equity.
-
2007 (3) TMI 694
Issues Involved: Notice compliance, Tax liability under Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, Registration requirement, Sale and distribution of lottery tickets, Constitutional validity of the Act, Jurisdiction of the State of Kerala. Analysis:The petitioner was served with a notice on May 15, 2006, from the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) Special Circle-I (KGST), Ernakulam, directing it to furnish details of lottery tickets purchased and sold during 2005-06 and for April and May 2006. The petitioner responded with details of lottery tickets purchased from Kerala but mentioned that tickets from Karnataka were managed by their Bangalore office. A subsequent notice on May 18, 2006, from the second respondent alleged the petitioner sold lottery tickets from outside the state without remitting tax under the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005, violating sections 7, 8, and 10. The petitioner was informed of penalties and dues amounting to Rs. 27,37,50,000 and a penalty of Rs. 6,36,71,500 for non-remittance of tax and filing of returns. The petitioner contested these claims, stating that lottery tickets from Karnataka were not sold or distributed in Kerala and were kept in Bangalore. They argued they were not promoters as defined under section 2(l) of the Act and hence not liable for registration under section 7 or penalties under sections 22 and 23. The second respondent, however, passed an order on October 25, 2006, affirming the violations and imposing the dues and penalties. The petitioner challenged these orders and the constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005, in W.P. (C) No. 30558 of 2006. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, suggesting an alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner then filed W.A. No. 2429 of 2006 and W.P. (C). No. 5154 of 2007, seeking to quash the revenue recovery notices and a declaration that the respondents had no right to enforce those orders. In defense, the petitioner argued that they were not legally bound to register under section 7 as they were not promoters within the definition of the Act. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sunrise Associates v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which held that lotteries are not "goods" for sales tax purposes but actionable claims. The petitioner claimed the taxable event occurred in Karnataka, governed by the Karnataka Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004, not the Kerala Act. The Special Government Pleader argued that the petitioner conducted business of selling Karnataka and Kerala State lottery tickets in Kerala and was bound to register under the Kerala Act. The petitioner was deemed a promoter under the Act, liable for registration and tax. The court examined the petitioner's business model, noting that lottery tickets from Karnataka were managed from their Bangalore office and not sold in Kerala. The petitioner had registration for Kerala State lottery tickets but not for Karnataka tickets, as they were not appointed by Karnataka to sell tickets in Kerala. The court found no evidence that the petitioner sold Karnataka lottery tickets in Kerala, thus not fitting the definition of a promoter under section 2(l) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner was not required to register under section 7, and the imposition of tax and penalties was unauthorized and without jurisdiction. The court also noted the State Government's inconsistent stance regarding the term "promoter" in similar cases. The court allowed W.A. No. 2429 of 2006 and W.P. (C) No. 5154 of 2007, quashing the impugned orders and demand notices. W.P. (C). No. 2513 of 2007 was dismissed as infructuous.
-
2007 (3) TMI 693
Issues:
- Levy of penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
- Reduction of estimation by appellate authority
- Tribunal's restoration of assessing officer's order
- Levy of penalty on various components
- Absence of substantial provision for penalty and surcharge
- Applicability of previous court rulings on penalty
Levy of Penalty under Section 12(3)(b):
The petitioners, running a hotel, were assessed for the year 1994-95, where a difference in turnover was found by the assessing officer. Penalty was levied under section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The appellate authority reduced the estimation from 20% to 2%, confirming the assessment. The Tribunal then restored the assessing officer's order, which was challenged in the High Court. The issue before the court was the legality of the penalty imposed.
Reduction of Estimation by Appellate Authority and Tribunal's Decision:
The appellate authority reduced the estimation made by the assessing officer, confirming the assessment. However, the Tribunal modified the appellate authority's order and reinstated the assessing officer's decision. This led to the matter being brought before the High Court for review.
Levy of Penalty on Various Components:
The penalty was levied on different components, including TNGST due, surcharge due, additional surcharge, and additional sales tax. The court considered the absence of a substantial provision in the Act for the levy of such penalties and surcharges, which was a crucial point of contention in the case.
Absence of Substantial Provision for Penalty and Surcharge:
The court deliberated on the absence of a substantial provision in the Act for the levy of penalty, surcharge, additional surcharge, and additional sales tax. Relying on previous court rulings, it was established that no penalty could be imposed on additional tax during the relevant period. The court referred to specific cases and legal precedents to support its decision.
Applicability of Previous Court Rulings on Penalty:
The court referred to a Division Bench ruling and subsequent Supreme Court judgments to support the argument that penalties on surcharge, additional surcharge, and additional sales tax could not be legally sustained during the relevant period. Based on these precedents, the court modified the Tribunal's order and set aside the penalty on these components.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, modifying the Tribunal's order regarding the levy of penalty on surcharge, additional surcharge, and additional sales tax, based on the absence of a substantial provision in the Act and previous court rulings on the matter.
-
2007 (3) TMI 692
Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalty by the Commercial Tax Department on a company for incorrect assessment of tax rate.
2. Interpretation of section 43(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 regarding submission of false returns and imposition of penalties.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner, a registered company engaged in manufacturing electronic goods, challenged the penalty imposed by the Commercial Tax Department amounting to Rs. 2,09,489 for incorrect assessment of tax rate. The company claimed exemption and paid tax at 8% per annum based on a government notification, but the assessing authority determined that tax should be paid at 12% per annum as confirmation from M.P. Electronic Development Corporation was lacking. The revisional authority reduced the penalty by 50%, leading to the petitioner seeking total exemption from penalty. The court examined whether the petitioner's actions constituted submission of a false return for tax evasion, as per the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act.
Issue 2: The court analyzed section 43(1) of the Act, which allows imposition of penalties if a dealer conceals turnover, furnishes inaccurate particulars, or submits a false return. The court referred to a previous judgment by the Division Bench to determine what constitutes a false return. It was established that merely claiming exemption based on a legal plea does not amount to submitting a false return if all facts are accurately disclosed. In this case, the petitioner disclosed all relevant facts and claimed exemption under the notification, which did not constitute a false return. The court concluded that the petitioner's legal plea for exemption did not warrant penalty imposition, as no false statements were made in the return.
In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing the penalty imposition orders by the authorities. The judgment emphasized that claiming exemption based on a notification, even if a false legal plea, does not amount to submitting a false return under section 43(1) of the Act. The court found no justification for penalty imposition, as the petitioner had fully disclosed all facts, leading to the dismissal of the penalty and allowing the petition in favor of the company.
-
2007 (3) TMI 691
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the petitioner's status as a "dealer" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Validity of the assessment orders based on the documents seized (D7 records).
3. Petitioner's entitlement to copies of the D7 records without producing the accounts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the Petitioner's Status as a "Dealer":
The petitioner argued that they should not be considered a "dealer" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as their role was limited to facilitating transactions between sellers and purchasers and acting as a guarantor. However, the court did not find this argument sufficient to exempt the petitioner from the obligations under the Act, including registration and compliance with tax assessments.
2. Validity of the Assessment Orders Based on the Documents Seized (D7 Records):
The court noted that the enforcement authorities are empowered to inspect business premises and recover incriminating documents to verify if the dealers have properly accounted for them. If such documents are not reflected in the regular accounts, the authorities are justified in conducting further inquiries and passing assessment orders based on the explanations provided by the assessee. The petitioner failed to respond to summons and pre-assessment notices, leading to a best judgment assessment based on the documents seized.
3. Petitioner's Entitlement to Copies of the D7 Records Without Producing the Accounts:
The petitioner sought copies of the D7 records without producing the relevant accounts. The court emphasized that providing copies of the D7 records before verifying the accounts could lead to manipulation of records. The Tribunal initially directed the authorities to furnish copies of the D7 records at the petitioner's cost but modified this order upon review, requiring the petitioner to produce the accounts first. The court upheld this decision, stating that it is necessary to prevent tampering with the accounts and ensure accurate assessment.
The court referred to several precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of context and detailed reasoning in judicial decisions. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no illegality or irregularity in the order that required the petitioner to produce the accounts before obtaining copies of the D7 records. The petitioner's reliance on a Division Bench decision was deemed insufficient as that order was passed without deciding the substantive issues or providing reasons.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the requirement for the petitioner to produce the relevant accounts before obtaining copies of the D7 records. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments against the assessment orders and the procedural requirements imposed by the Tribunal.
-
2007 (3) TMI 690
Issues involved: Whether the State Government can collect sales tax or license fee from dealers selling lottery tickets.
W.P. (C) No. 4002 of 2007:
The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing with on-line lotteries, challenged the constitutionality of section 5BA of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and sought to quash exhibit P12 series notices proposing to collect licensing fees. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunrise Associates case, arguing that no tax can be collected on lottery tickets as they are considered actionable claims and not goods under the KGST Act. The respondents, however, cited precedents to support the collection of tax until a certain date. The court examined the definitions of "goods" and "sale" under the KGST Act and relevant constitutional provisions, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner based on the apex court's authoritative pronouncement.
O.P. Nos. 20701 and 29544 of 2002, and others:
Following the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 4002 of 2007 and the apex court's decisions, these writ petitions were also allowed. The State and its officials were restrained from collecting any tax or license fee from dealers of lottery tickets under the KGST Act. No costs were awarded in these cases.
-
2007 (3) TMI 689
Issues:
Writ petitions involving commercial tax, entry tax, and Central sales tax for the period from April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997; Applicability of Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002; Levying of penalty under the Commercial Tax Act post the Samadhan Scheme.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Writ Petitions Related to Tax Assessments
The writ petitions involved assessments for commercial tax, entry tax, and Central sales tax for the period from April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997. Assessment orders were passed raising demands against the petitioner in all three cases. Revision petitions were filed challenging these assessments.
Issue 2: Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002
The Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002, introduced by the State, allowed for the settlement of outstanding tax and penalty amounts under specific tax Acts. The scheme aimed to facilitate the payment of arrears outstanding as of April 1, 2001, by offering a reduced payment option based on the total arrears related to years up to March 31, 1997. The scheme also provided immunity from penal actions upon settlement under its provisions.
Issue 3: Levying of Penalty Post Samadhan Scheme
The petitioner availed the Samadhan Scheme by making the required payment and receiving a certificate indicating the settlement of arrears without any penalty liability. However, the Deputy Commissioner later levied a penalty under the Commercial Tax Act for the same period. The petitioner challenged this penalty on the grounds that it was against the provisions of the Samadhan Scheme, which barred penal actions post-settlement.
Court's Decision
The court found that the penalty imposed post the issuance of the Samadhan Certificate was without jurisdiction as per the scheme's provisions. The court held that the authorities had no power to levy penalties after the case was disposed of under the Samadhan Scheme. Consequently, the court quashed the orders imposing penalties for commercial tax, entry tax, and Central sales tax, as they were found to be without jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the penalty orders and upholding the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the scheme's guidelines and preventing penal actions post-settlement under the scheme.
-
2007 (3) TMI 688
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of IOC to entertain an application under section 47(1)(b)(i) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Applicability of tax relief under section 47(1)(b)(i) versus the composition scheme under section 20 of the Act.
3. Estoppel of the petitioner from invoking section 47(1)(b)(i) after opting for the composition scheme.
4. Validity of the original judgment and order dated September 20, 2006.
Detailed Analysis:
Competence of IOC to Entertain an Application under Section 47(1)(b)(i)
The Court examined whether the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) had the authority to entertain an application under section 47(1)(b)(i) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The term "Prescribed Authority" as defined in section 2(37) of the Act refers to any person appointed to assist the Commissioner of Taxes to whom powers have been delegated. The Court concluded that IOC is not the prescribed authority and thus has no competence to entertain such an application.
Applicability of Tax Relief under Section 47(1)(b)(i) versus Composition Scheme under Section 20
The petitioner had opted for the composition scheme under section 20 of the Act, which allows for the payment of tax by a lump sum in lieu of the tax payable under the Act. Section 47(1)(b)(i) allows for reduced or no deduction of tax if the works contract involves both transfer of property in goods and labor/services. The Court noted that these two provisions are mutually exclusive and serve as alternatives to each other. The petitioner cannot simultaneously seek benefits under both sections.
Estoppel from Invoking Section 47(1)(b)(i) after Opting for Composition Scheme
The Court held that once the petitioner opted for the composition scheme under section 20, they are estopped from invoking section 47(1)(b)(i). This is because opting for the composition scheme implies a voluntary and informed decision to pay a computed amount of tax, which precludes the petitioner from seeking further tax relief under section 47(1)(b)(i). This interpretation was supported by the Karnataka High Court's decision in T.H. Venkate Gowda v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore [2007] 5 VST 553.
Validity of the Original Judgment and Order Dated September 20, 2006
The original judgment directed IOC to consider the petitioner's application under section 47(1)(b)(i). However, given that IOC is not the prescribed authority, this direction was found to be erroneous. The review applicants argued that the petitioners had already opted for the composition scheme, making them ineligible for relief under section 47(1)(b)(i). The Court agreed with this contention and found that the original judgment and order needed reconsideration.
Conclusion:
The review application was allowed, and the judgment and order dated September 20, 2006, were recalled. The Court adjudged the petition to be devoid of merit and dismissed it, emphasizing that the respondent authorities should conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules while exacting the tax payable by the petitioner. No costs were awarded.
-
2007 (3) TMI 687
Validity of sub-section (16A) of section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Circulars directing to collect sales tax in advance at the border check-posts, at the time of import of certain evasion-prone commodities - entry tax - detention of the goods at the check-post - Another Circular issued for collection of advance tax in respect of twelve evasion-prone commodities at the entry points into the State such as check-posts, ports, airports and railway stations - sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - violates articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- If evasion of tax is to be prevented, the same can be done only by demanding tax in advance before the occurrence of the taxable event. It is true, while interpreting a taxing statute, if there is any doubt, the same should go in favour of the assessee. But, in this case, if the interpretation advanced by the petitioners is accepted, the same will render the provision ineffective to prevent evasion of tax. So, the "golden rule" of interpretation has to be followed. The "golden rule" is dealt with in Principles of Statutory Interpretation.
In the light of the above principles, sub-section (16A) has to be read as authorising the Commissioner to direct payment of tax before the taxable event takes place. Otherwise, the purpose of the sub-section, namely, prevention of evasion of tax will be defeated. Therefore, the circulars have to be held intra vires of sub-section (16A).
Violates articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - It is well-settled that the Legislature enjoys a greater latitude for classification in the field of taxation (See the decision of the apex court in Steelworth Limited v. State of Assam [1962 (1) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT]. Demanding tax in advance cannot be said to be an action, infringing the fundamental rights under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Demand and collection of tax may cause some inconvenience. But, the same cannot be described as violation of any fundamental right. Same is the case of attack, relying on article 301 and also on the ground of lack of competence of the State to tax on inter-State movement of goods.
By demanding tax in advance, the State does not impose or levy any tax, which it is not competent to levy. It is only a measure to prevent evasion of tax, which the State is legitimately entitled to collect. It is not an attempt to tax on inter-State sale. The free-flow of goods is also not prevented by demanding tax in advance. Some inconvenience caused at the check-posts cannot be described as violating the rights under article 301 of the Constitution of India. If such a contention is accepted, all the check-posts should be abolished, so as to provide unhindered movement of goods. Such a right cannot be claimed under article 301.
The petitioners submit, if such an interpretation is accepted, it will make sub-section (16A) unconstitutional. They point out that the taxable event is the sale. The Constitution authorises the Legislature to impose tax on sale.
Thus, the challenge against the constitutional validity of section 47(16A) of the KVAT Act is repelled. The validity of the impugned circulars are upheld. The timing of the issuance of the circulars, that is immediately after the rendering of the judgment by this court, in the "Entry Tax Cases" cannot be a ground to condemn the circulars, if they are otherwise valid. The individual grievance caused to certain dealers cannot be a ground for declaring the provision or the circulars unconstitutional. A dealer, whose entire sales are in the course of export may not be liable to pay tax. If (1) Here italicised. advance tax is collected from him and he does not make any local sale and therefore, not liable to pay tax, he can claim refund of the same. In that event, the State shall refund the amount paid by him. Such individual inconveniences or grievances can never be pressed into service, to attack a legislation. I have not dealt with in this judgment, some of the decisions cited by both sides, as they were not strictly relevant. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 686
Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 ("the Act") - notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Act - violative of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Art.301 and not saved by Art.304 (b) of the Constitution of India - (a) Whether the levy of entry tax under Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2001 can be justified as a compensatory tax? - HELD THAT:- The essence of compensatory tax is that the services rendered or facilities provided should be more or less commensurate with the tax levied. Services provided will have a direct co-relation with the trade. The main basis of compensatory tax is the quantifiable and measurable benefit represented by the cost incurred in procuring the facilities/services. The cost, in turn, becomes the basis of reimbursement/recompense for provider of services/facilities. As held in Jindal's case[2006 (4) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT], the compensatory tax is a charge for offering trade facilities and it is based on the principles of equivalence. Applying the above test, it cannot be said that maintaining of roads, providing bridges etc., is compensatory in nature so as to constitute special advantage to trade, commerce and intercourse. Even otherwise, a welfare State is bestowed with the responsibilities of providing good roads and bridges for the benefit of the tax paying citizens and hence to contend that the impugned levy is being raised only for the said purpose is not justified.
Maintenance of roads, bridges, etc., is generally met from the general funds or revenue. Whether goods are transported into the State or outside State or abroad, the State has got a duty to provide facilities like roads, bridges, etc., which are being enjoyed not only by the persons who bring the goods notified for levy of entry tax, but also by others.
It is necessary to bear in mind that the roads, bridges expenditure test was applied in Automobile Transport's case 1962 (4) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] as the tax impugned therein was the tax on motor vehicles which use the roads/ bridges. Therefore, there was a clear nexus between the purpose of the levy and the purpose for which the tax was spent. As observed in Jindal Stripe Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2003 (9) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT].
This expenditure merely represents the expenditure incurred by the State from its general total taxes revenue and other receipts including the World Bank grants and loans. The said roads and bridges which are constructed or maintained by incurring this expenditure cannot possibly be considered to be a facility or convenience of services, which is provided to a particular importer who imports the goods into a particular local area. Further, the State has conveniently omitted to state that apart from the levy made under the impugned legislation, taxes for the purpose of maintenance of roads are also being levied on the owners of motor vehicles under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 wherein the parameters of levy are based on the laden weight of the motor vehicle. Different yardsticks of levy are contemplated under the said Act such as stage carriers, contract carriers, private vehicles, etc., which also add to the coffers of the exchequer. The figures of revenue earned by the levy under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act or the money spent out of the said levy have not been disclosed. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of the petitioners that the legislation has been enacted only with an eye of raising or augmenting general revenue and not as reimbursement or recompense as held in Jindal's case.
In Eurotex Industries & Exports Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2004 (1) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], a division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that for an Act to be compensatory in nature, there must be a clear nexus between the tax collected and benefits conferred upon the persons from whom such tax is collected. In the absence of any link between the entry tax on imported goods, and the facilities extended to the importers directly or indirectly, the levy of entry tax which is discriminatory cannot be said to be compensatory in nature. In these circumstances, subjecting the goods imported from outside the State to entry tax becomes unauthorised, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of article 301 of the Constitution. It was held that entry 13 of the Schedule to the Maharashtra Tax on the Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2002 insofar as it purports to levy entry tax on furnace oil and low sulphur waxy residue oil is unauthorised and unconstitutional.
Thus, we hold that the impugned Act does not satisfy the test laid down for compensatory tax and as no Presidential assent has been obtained under article 304(b) of the Constitution, the provisions of the impugned Act are ultra vires article 301 of the Constitution.
(b) Whether the impugned levy of entry tax is violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution? - In Laxmi Paper Mart [1997 (2) TMI 447 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has emphatically said that once the discrimination is made out, the enquiry by court ends. The price structure of the imported goods vis-a-vis the locally manufactured goods or the economics of the importer need not be gone into (supra). Even otherwise, the submission of the learned Advocate-General is not factually correct. For example, there is no local sales tax levied on cigarettes and other tobacco products. Therefore, section 4(2) does not have any application to cigarette and other tobacco products and it cannot be contended that there is no discrimination. As regards, any other scheduled goods, which a dealer imports by way of purchase from another State, such importer suffers Central sales tax of four per cent in the exporting State and in addition thereto suffers the impugned entry tax. Thus, over and above the entry tax, the purchaser has suffered Central sales tax in the exporting State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed charts showing entry tax and sales tax structure and the effect of section 4 of the Act on entry of goods into local areas. It is seen from the charts that the importer of goods from outside State is clearly put to disadvantage as compared to a local manufacturer or producer. It may also be noted that the set-off under section 4 of the Act is not available for entry tax paid on the goods used as input raw materials. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the levy of entry tax under the impugned Act is violative of clause (a) of article 304 of the Constitution.
We may mention that the petitioners also raised the issue of legislative competence of the State Government to levy entry tax under entry 52 of List II on goods imported from outside the State. But in view of our foregoing conclusion that the levy is violative of article 301 of the Constitution, it is not necessary for us to express our opinion on this issue.
In the result, we hold that the levy of entry tax on goods imported from other States to the State of Tamil Nadu and from abroad is not compensatory in nature, since the State Government could not discharge its burden by placing materials before the court that payment of levy of entry tax is reimbursement/recompense for the quantifiable/measurable benefit provided or to be provided to the tax payers. The impugned levy imposing entry tax being discriminatory is also violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution.
We, therefore, hold that the demand and collection of entry tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 is illegal, unauthorised and violative of article 301 of the Constitution.
The writ petitions are allowed as above and the levy and demand notices issued would stand quashed. Consequently, writ appeals are disposed of.
-
2007 (3) TMI 685
Issues:
Petitioner's complaint of arbitrary actions by respondents in not permitting movement of coal-laden trucks through Assam without tax payment under Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in coal sale in Northern India, faces obstacles in transporting coal through Assam due to tax issues. The court emphasizes the need to clarify legislative norms to prevent disputes, ensure smooth trade, and comply with the Constitution. The Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, governs the movement of goods in transit, requiring valid documents and transit passes for inter-State trade. The Act mandates checks at entry and exit points in Assam to verify goods and documents, ensuring goods leave the state. The Act empowers the entry check-post to levy security in specific situations, refundable upon goods' exit confirmation. The court stresses the importance of mutual compliance to avoid disputes and maintain social order.
The court notes that while the Act lacks a requirement to record reasons for imposing security, such omissions are intentional and not unintended. However, in a rule of law system, all governmental actions must be reasonable, fair, and based on sound reasons. The court suggests that communicating reasons for imposing security ensures fairness, prevents arbitrariness, and aligns with constitutional principles. Referring to legal precedents, the court highlights the importance of interpreting legislative intent to promote fairness and good administration.
The court underscores the need for the check-post authority to generate satisfaction based on relevant materials before imposing security. While the Act does not mandate detailed reasoning, the court suggests that on-the-spot formulations of reasons should suffice, considering the practical challenges at check-posts. The court directs the movement of the petitioner's coal as per the present order and instructs the Commissioner of Taxes to issue a circular incorporating the order's key points for compliance by officials. Consequently, the writ petition is answered and closed based on the provided directions.
-
2007 (3) TMI 684
Issues involved: Reassessment order and demands raised u/s Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging a reassessment order and demands raised under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority's decision was illegal, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India. The petitioner contended that electromagnetic waves cannot be considered goods, and therefore, taxing a transaction involving the transfer of electromagnetic waves was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. Additionally, reliance was placed on the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, where the High Court was criticized for not entertaining a writ petition solely based on the availability of statutory remedies.
The High Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of both facts and law in cases involving transactions like the one in question. It was noted that the nature of the transaction between the petitioner and its subscribers needed to be scrutinized by the authorities under the Act to determine the tax implications accurately. The Court highlighted the importance of appellate remedies and stated that bypassing them to invoke writ jurisdiction was not justified solely based on potential errors by the assessing authority.
The judgment delved into the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., which addressed the nature of transactions involving mobile phone connections. The Court highlighted the distinction between goods and services in telecommunications and the potential for composite contracts involving both elements. The Supreme Court's ruling indicated that taxes could be levied based on the nature of the transaction, terms of the contract, and the elements involved in providing the service.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive consideration of all issues before making a legal determination. It was suggested that the appellate authority should handle the matter, considering the legal positions explored in the judgment. The Court advised the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal and address any delay in filing the appeal with the appellate authority. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition and leaving all contentions open for further consideration by the appellate authority.
-
2007 (3) TMI 683
Issues Involved
1. Scope and extent of powers of the statutory authority for passing orders of "suspension" and "cancellation" of registration certificate under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act).
2. Compliance with statutory requirements and principles of natural justice in the suspension and cancellation process.
3. Legality of the order of cancellation without disposing of the application for restoration of the registration certificate.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
Scope and Extent of Powers of Statutory Authority
The petitioner challenged the suspension and subsequent cancellation of their registration certificate under the OVAT Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST) suspended the certificate on November 23, 2005, and cancelled it on December 16, 2005. The ACST's actions were based on findings that the dealer's purchases and sales did not commensurate, leading to suspicion of tax evasion. The petitioner argued that the statutory authority must strictly comply with the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice when exercising such wide powers.
Compliance with Statutory Requirements and Principles of Natural Justice
The court scrutinized sections 30 and 31(5) of the OVAT Act, which outline the procedures for suspension and cancellation of registration certificates. Section 30(2) mandates that the dealer must be given a notice to produce records within thirty days from the date of suspension. Section 30(3) allows the dealer to apply for restoration of the certificate. The court found that the ACST failed to comply with these provisions. The petitioner had produced the required documents and applied for restoration on November 28, 2005, but the ACST did not dispose of this application before cancelling the certificate.
The court emphasized that the statutory authority must provide an opportunity for the dealer to be heard and must conduct an inquiry before cancelling the registration certificate, as per section 31(5). The ACST's failure to provide a copy of the "preliminary report" used as a basis for cancellation violated the principles of natural justice.
Legality of the Order of Cancellation
The court noted that the order of cancellation was passed without issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner and without disposing of the application for restoration. The court held that the ACST acted in a "most cavalier manner" and misused their authority. The court cited the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, emphasizing that natural justice must be observed in administrative actions involving civil consequences.
The court found that the ACST's actions were illegal and unlawful, as they did not follow the statutory procedure and denied the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court quashed the order of cancellation dated December 16, 2005, and directed the opposite party to dispose of the petitioner's application for restoration within two weeks.
Conclusion
The court allowed the writ application, quashed the order of cancellation, and directed the statutory authority to deal with the petitioner's application for restoration expeditiously. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and principles of natural justice in administrative actions involving suspension and cancellation of registration certificates.
-
2007 (3) TMI 682
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the order of assessment dated August 14, 2001.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
3. Validity of the "F forms" submitted by the dealer.
4. Exercise of rectification jurisdiction by the VAT Tribunal.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Jurisdiction to pass an order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Legality and Propriety of the Order of Assessment:
The writ petition challenges the order dated August 14, 2001, where the assessing authority accepted 66 statutory "F forms" submitted by the dealer to claim a deduction of Rs. 25,19,16,609.37 as transfers otherwise than by way of sales. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner later discovered that the "F forms" were forged, leading to a suo motu notice under section 21 of the State Act to examine the legality of the assessment order.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner:
The dealer contested the jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner to issue a notice under section 21 of the State Act. The revisional authority, without addressing this preliminary objection, found the "F forms" to be forged and remanded the case to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for further inquiry. This was upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal and this court in previous proceedings.
3. Validity of the "F forms":
The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority, Ludhiana-III, rejected the dealer's claim of transfer of goods other than by way of sales due to defective "F forms." The dealer argued that the transfer of goods could be proved by other evidence and that the consignor should not be held responsible for the consignee's misdeeds.
4. Exercise of Rectification Jurisdiction by the VAT Tribunal:
The VAT Tribunal accepted the dealer's rectification application, which was challenged by the State. The Tribunal's rectification was argued to be a change of opinion rather than an error apparent on the face of the record. The dealer's counsel argued that the rectification was necessary due to non-consideration of contentions raised by the dealer.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The dealer claimed a violation of natural justice as they were not confronted with the report from Delhi sales tax authorities or any Gazette notification regarding the cancellation of registration certificates or loss of "F forms." The court found that the dealer was not afforded an effective opportunity to be heard, leading to a violation of natural justice.
6. Jurisdiction to Pass an Order Under the Central Sales Tax Act:
The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner passed an order under the Central Act, rejecting the claim of consignment transfers due to defective "F forms." The dealer argued that the initial proceedings were under the State Act, and no proceedings were initiated under the Central Act. The Tribunal did not address this jurisdictional issue in its order.
Conclusion:
The court overruled the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy and dealt with the issues on merits. The court found that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority exercised revisional jurisdiction a second time, which was beyond the remand directions. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-III, to be dealt with in accordance with the law. The respondent-assessee was directed to appear before the concerned authority for further proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 681
Issues:
1. Assessment of sales as inter-State or intra-State under TNGST Act and CST Act.
2. Revision of assessments based on change of opinion.
3. Power of assessing authority to determine nature of transactions.
4. Applicability of statutory provisions for challenging assessment orders.
5. Adjustment of tax already paid under Central Act for maintaining appeals under TNGST Act.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, tea brokers and auctioneers, challenged assessments under TNGST Act and CST Act. The respondent re-assessed sales as intra-State, not inter-State, leading to revised assessments. Dispute arose on whether movement of goods to other states was under a contract of sale. The assessing authority's discretion to determine inter-State or intra-State transactions was upheld.
2. The petitioners argued against revising assessments based on change of opinion. However, the court emphasized the authority's power to treat transactions as taxable, following the prescribed machinery for challenging assessments. The apex court's judgment highlighted the need to challenge assessment orders through statutory provisions, not via constitutional petitions.
3. The core issue was whether auction sales by petitioners constituted inter-State transactions. The court stressed the need for material proof to establish inter-State sales, directing petitioners to present evidence before the appellate authority. The authority's decision to treat sales as intra-State was upheld based on the auction process and location of sale.
4. The statutory provisions for challenging assessments were discussed, emphasizing the right to appeal subject to payment conditions. The court allowed petitioners to file appeals within two weeks, directing adjustment of tax already paid under the Central Act for maintaining appeals under the TNGST Act. Equitable balance between parties was emphasized in exercising jurisdiction under article 226.
5. The judgment concluded by permitting petitioners to file appeals and directing adjustment of tax already paid under the Central Act for maintaining appeals under the TNGST Act. The court referred to a previous case for similar tax adjustment directives. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.
This detailed analysis covers the issues of assessment under different tax acts, revision of assessments, authority of assessing officers, statutory provisions for challenging assessments, and adjustment of tax for maintaining appeals, as addressed in the judgment by the Madras High Court.
-
2007 (3) TMI 680
Liability for payment of tax created in terms of the charging section - Validity Of section 3 of the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004 ("the Act") - Contravention of sub-articles (a) and (b) of article 304 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The test for determining as to whether the provision is discriminatory or not and the combined effect on the present law and the KST Act cannot be called in aid as a defence to show that they achieve parity in the matter of levy of tax by the State Legislature on similar goods and therefore the further question as to whether it is actually achieved or not recedes to the background. The attack of discrimination, which is sought to be dispelled by operation of the provisions of the very enactment, as noticed earlier on the first contention, remains and therefore it will have to be held that the provision is inevitably one in violation of the requirement of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India and has to be declared as unconstitutional.
Insofar as the argument of the learned Advocate-General placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaktikumar M. Sancheti's case [1994 (11) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT]is concerned, the argument of the provisions of the Maharashtra Act being in violation of the provisions of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India was not even canvassed by the appellant before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did not examine this question. While it is a fact that the High Court had dispelled the argument of the Act being violative of article 304(a) at the best, the law as laid down by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court can be accepted as a persuasive precedent. So also the position in respect of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Eagle Corporation's case[2006 (10) TMI 395 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. But, in the light of the discussion above with reference to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Avinyl Polymers' case [1998] 109 STC 26, I cannot agree with the view expressed by either the Gujarat High Court or the Bombay High Court, but only follow the view of the Division Bench of our court and therefore I reject the contention urged on behalf of the State. This question being covered by the ratio in Avinyl Polymers' case [1997 (8) TMI 471 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], it is not possible to examine the argument of liberal construction to be employed in testing the validity of taxing statute when challenged on the ground of discrimination.
In this view of the development, I am not inclined to examine the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners by Sri Navroz H. Seervai, learned Senior Counsel, that the defence of valid classification available for defending the allegation of discrimination under article 14 cannot be called in aid to test the existence or otherwise of the discrimination under the provisions of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India, as it has become unnecessary to answer this question.
Though the examination could have been stopped at this stage, as very serious arguments have been addressed on the question as to whether the provisions of article 304(b) are still attracted even after answering the question in the light of the provisions of article 304(a) and lengthy submissions have been made at the bar on this question and for the sake of completion of examination, I take up this contention next.
While one argument is that the very fact that if such a levy is not discriminatory, then that by itself takes care of the requirements of article 304 of the Constitution of India, as contended by the learned AdvocateGeneral, I am unable to accept this proposition, for the reason that the taxing statute which has the effect of impeding movement but still found to be a non-discriminatory tax, at the best can be passing the test of article 304(a) and not as one answering the requirements of article 304(b) also.
In the present case, while no independent argument is advanced to contend that the restriction is a reasonable restriction imposed in public interest, it is not even in dispute that the Bill had not received the previous sanction of the President nor the defect cured by the Act having been reserved for the assent of the President and the assent having been given in terms of the provisions of article 255 of the Constitution of India. For this reason also, the Act becomes unconstitutional, being violative of sub-article (b) of article 304 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, these petitions are allowed, the provisions of the Act, particularly section 3 of the Act are declared to be in contravention of subarticles (a) and (b) of article 304 of the Constitution of India and therefore violates article 301 and accordingly declared to be unconstitutional. The impugned assessment orders, demand notices, etc., issued for giving effect to the provisions of the Act and the charging section and all proceedings initiated under the Act stand quashed, by issue of writs of certiorari in all these petitions. As a consequence, the taxes collected by the State under the impugned provisions of the Act are required to be refunded to the persons who have paid them.
Rule made absolute. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 679
Issues: Detention of goods under goods detention order, rejection of revision petition for non-production of compounding order, fairness in disposal of cases
The judgment of the Madras High Court involved a case where a petitioner, a registered dealer and a hundred per cent export oriented unit, had goods detained under a goods detention order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement. The petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to release the goods, who directed the third respondent to release them upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The petitioner complied and got the goods released. However, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition for not producing the compounding order, which was later obtained and produced to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner refused to entertain the revision, leading to further dismissal by the Joint Commissioner. The petitioner challenged this sequence of events in a writ petition, arguing that the certified copy of the compounding order was eventually submitted and should have been considered by the authorities. The court noted that the Deputy Commissioner should have re-considered the issue afresh, as every order passed by a quasi-judicial officer can be reviewed if necessary, citing a Supreme Court judgment in support of this principle.
The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, found that the petitioner had indeed represented the revision along with the certified copy of the compounding order, which should have been taken into consideration by the authorities. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner should re-hear the matter, as his reasoning for not doing so previously was not legally sustainable. The court emphasized that every order passed by a quasi-judicial officer can be reviewed if needed, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to re-consider the issue if the certified copy of the compounding order was available with the file. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and no costs were awarded.
-
2007 (3) TMI 678
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty imposed under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994.
2. Applicability of Section 45A and Section 45D of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994.
3. Procedural fairness in the imposition of the penalty.
Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Penalty Imposed:
The petitioner, a registered company dealing in leasing equipment and machinery, challenged the penalty imposed by the Check-post Officer for alleged evasion of tax. The trucks carrying JCB backhoe loaders were checked at the border check-post in Madhya Pradesh, and the documents were found to be not in order. The Check-post Officer issued a show cause notice under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, and subsequently imposed a penalty. The petitioner contended that the machines were being sent on a rental basis and not for sale, arguing that there was no tax evasion. However, the Check-post Officer and the Commissioner dismissed these contentions, leading to the petitioner challenging the orders.
2. Applicability of Section 45A and Section 45D:
The petitioner argued that Section 45A of the Act, which deals with the establishment of check-posts to prevent tax evasion, was not applicable as JCBs were not notified goods under this section. The court examined Section 45A(1), (4), and (7) and found that the provision applies only to notified goods, which JCBs were not. However, the respondents relied on Section 45D, which grants power to check goods in transit. Section 45D(2) requires transporters to carry an invoice, bill, or challan, and Section 45D(4) allows the officer to direct the transporter to take the vehicle to the nearest check-post if the documents are not in order. The court concluded that the satisfaction derived under Section 45D(4) is sufficient for taking action, and reference to Section 45A is only for its machinery provision, not the substantive requirements.
3. Procedural Fairness in the Imposition of the Penalty:
The court noted that the petitioner had declared the transaction as a stock transfer, but no evidence was provided to show that the appellant had a branch at the destination. The stand was later shifted to claim that the goods were being sent on lease. The Government Advocate pointed out inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements and the inability to trace the consignee. The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petitions by the single judge, finding no interference warranted. However, the court agreed with the petitioner's contention that the maximum penalty was imposed without providing proper reasons. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax had not explained why the maximum penalty was applicable. Therefore, the court directed the revisional authority to reconsider the quantum of penalty after giving an opportunity to the appellant.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed on all grounds except for the quantum of the penalty. The revisional authority was directed to provide an opportunity to the appellant to address the quantum of penalty, and coercive steps to recover the amount were put on hold until the decision.
-
2007 (3) TMI 677
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment relate to the writ petitions filed seeking the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TNGST/1240955/2003-04 and TNGST/1240955/2001-02, and to quash the assessment orders dated December 22, 2005 and September 28, 2004 respectively.
Judgment Details:
1. Assessment Orders Challenge:
The High Court noted that the orders of assessment were challenged in the writ petitions. While the court generally does not interfere with assessment orders due to the availability of an appellate remedy, in this case, the court decided to intervene due to the perceived carelessness and callousness in passing the assessment orders.
2. Consideration of Objections:
The assessing officer accepted that the petitioner had raised objections before a prerevision notice. However, the officer proceeded with the assessment without properly considering these objections. The court criticized the officer for basing the assessment solely on a proposal from enforcement officials, without independently evaluating the objections raised by the petitioner.
3. Setting Aside Assessment Orders:
The High Court found that the assessment orders were passed without due consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners. As a result, the court set aside the assessment orders and directed the assessing officer to reconsider each objection raised by the petitioners and provide valid reasons for their decision.
4. Remittal for Re-framing Assessment:
In both writ petitions, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the assessing authority to re-frame the assessment in accordance with the law. The court allowed the writ petitions without imposing any costs on the parties involved.
5. Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted for re-framing the assessment. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.
-
2007 (3) TMI 676
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of maintaining an appeal under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 without payment of admitted tax, and the authority of the appellate authority to waive or stay the pre-deposit requirement.
Issue 1: Appeal under Section 31 without payment of admitted tax
The petitioner filed a petition invoking the jurisdiction of section 7 of the Special Tribunal Act seeking relief to call for records of the case in M.P.No.121 of 2000 dated September 27, 2002, relating to the petitioner for the assessment year 1994-1995. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner quashed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the admitted tax to maintain the appeal. The petitioner contended that the court can pass an order directing the authorities to entertain the appeal without payment of admitted tax, citing relevant legal decisions. However, the court emphasized the mandatory requirement of section 31 of the TNGST Act, which necessitates the payment of admitted tax to maintain the appeal. The court analyzed various legal precedents and concluded that the statutory authority cannot admit an appeal without the required payment, dismissing the writ petition.
Issue 2: Authority to waive or stay pre-deposit requirement
The petitioner relied on legal provisions such as section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to argue against the pre-deposit requirement for maintaining the appeal. The court clarified that the protective provisions for sick industrial companies do not apply to the payment obligation for appeal maintenance. The court highlighted that the statutory requirement of payment for appeal maintenance cannot be equated with recovery proceedings against a company. Referring to multiple legal judgments, the court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory right subject to conditions, and the appellate authority cannot waive the pre-deposit condition. The court dismissed the writ petition while acknowledging the petitioner's right to represent the government for the removal of the appeal filing embargo.
............
|
9911796707
