|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 941 Records
-
2008 (9) TMI 906
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Notification No. 2598-F.T. dated August 1, 2001.
2. Retrospective effect of the notification from January 1, 2000.
3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Legality of retrospective tax imposition on "rab".
5. Differentiation between "gur" and "rab".
6. Legislative competence for retrospective taxation.
7. Reasonableness of retrospective tax.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
Constitutionality of the Notification No. 2598-F.T. dated August 1, 2001:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the notification under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. The notification imposed tax on "rab" retrospectively from January 1, 2000. The petitioner argued that this retrospective imposition was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Retrospective Effect of the Notification from January 1, 2000:
The notification dated August 1, 2001, brought "rab" under the taxable category with retrospective effect from January 1, 2000. The petitioner contended that this retrospective effect was unreasonable as no tax was collected on "rab" during this period, and the dealers would have to pay the tax from their own pockets.
Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner argued that the retrospective imposition of tax created inequality among dealers. Those whose assessments were completed before the notification were exempt from tax, while others whose assessments were completed after the notification were liable to pay tax, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Legality of Retrospective Tax Imposition on "rab":
The Tribunal examined whether the retrospective imposition of tax on "rab" was valid. It was found that the concept of "rab" was not known to the revenue authorities before 2000, and "rab" was treated as "gur" and non-taxable. The Tribunal concluded that the retrospective imposition was not clarificatory or explanatory but imposed a new tax liability.
Differentiation between "gur" and "rab":
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's explanation in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Shankar Industries, which clarified the difference between "gur" and "rab". "Rab" is a semi-solid form of sugar-cane juice, whereas "gur" is hardened and fit for human consumption. The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had no idea about "rab" before 2000.
Legislative Competence for Retrospective Taxation:
The Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench to adjudicate whether the Legislature is competent to legislate with retrospective effect. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore and Bengal Paper Mill Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which held that retrospective imposition of tax could be arbitrary and unreasonable.
Reasonableness of Retrospective Tax:
The Tribunal examined the reasonableness of the retrospective tax. It found that the retrospective amendment imposed an unexpected financial burden on the dealers, who did not collect tax during the period in question. The Tribunal concluded that the retrospective operation of the amendment was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the retrospective operation of the amendment by Notification No. 2598-F.T. dated August 1, 2001, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultra vires the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The prospective part of the amendment was deemed constitutional and valid. The assessment of tax on sales of "rab" for the period ending on March 31, 2001, was reduced to nil.
Post-Judgment:
The Tribunal granted an interim stay of the judgment's operation till November 10, 2008, restraining the respondents from realizing the demand set aside by the judgment.
-
2008 (9) TMI 905
Issues Involved:
1. Whether cotton yarn and sewing thread are one and the same commodity for taxation purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard a revision filed by the Revenue against an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issue was whether cotton yarn and sewing thread should be considered the same commodity for taxation. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of treating them as the same based on a previous court decision. However, the Revenue argued that sewing thread is not declared goods and falls outside the relevant tax entry. The Division Bench of the High Court had previously considered a similar case and held that sewing thread retains its identity as cotton yarn even when used for sewing purposes.
In the previous judgments, the High Court had emphasized that sewing thread does not lose its character as cotton yarn, even when sold for sewing purposes. The court stated that adding color to the yarn does not change its fundamental nature as cotton yarn. The Tribunal's decision to tax sewing thread separately was deemed erroneous by the High Court, as it contradicted established legal principles. Therefore, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee.
The High Court concluded that the issue at hand had already been settled in previous judgments, affirming that cotton thread manufactured by the assessee remains a declared good and is essentially the same as cotton yarn. As a result, the tax case was dismissed based on the established legal principles and precedents.
-
2008 (9) TMI 904
Whether the exemption Notification No. 1490 dated September 17, 2001 S.O. No. 183 issued under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 exempting sale or purchase of all kinds of man-made fibers and man-made yarn to which the rate of tax in respect thereof exceeds two per cent also covered the turnover tax imposed on the petitioner-assessee under section 13A of the RST Act, 1994 or the said exemption is limited to the individual sale or purchase of the specified commodities in the said notification?
Held that:- This court finds no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the turnover tax imposed upon the assessee should also be deemed to have been exempted under the notification dated September 17, 2001 and nothing beyond two per cent on sale of all kinds of man made fibers and yarn could be imposed in the face of the said notification. The said notification, in the considered opinion of this court, does not cover and exempt turnover tax leviable under section 13A of the Act and the said turnover tax imposed at 0.25 per cent under notification dated March 30, 2000 is neither hit nor eclipsed nor cut by the subsequent notification dated September 17, 2001. Against assessee.
-
2008 (9) TMI 903
Whether no entry tax is payable on the purchase of diaphragm? - Held that:- We do agree with the learned counsel for the revisionist to the extent that customs duty is a kind of indirect tax like the Central excise and it can be charged by the seller from the purchaser. But, in the case of customs duty, there can be two modes of making the payment. Supposing an item imported from abroad is purchased from a dealer in India, the Indian dealer has a right to add customs duty paid by him to the price of the goods, and same can be charged from the subsequent purchaser. Inclusion of such duty by the seller would make the purchase price higher than the purchase price paid by the dealer directly from the seller outside India and such purchaser for importing will have to make payment of customs duty himself. In a later case as per the spirit of definition of "purchase price" given in clause (gg) the customs duty or other charges paid by the purchaser separately (not charged by the seller) does not to form part of the purchase price. That being so, we do not find any error of law committed by the Tribunal in holding that the A.O. and the first appellate authority have erred in law by adding the customs duty paid by the dealer (which the seller has not charged) in calculating the value of the goods imported by the dealer.
Thus the revision filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 902
Issues:
1. Validity of show-cause/demand notice for entry tax.
2. Issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) without a valid assessment order.
3. Claim of exemption pending before the High Level Screening Committee.
4. Legality of recovery proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Department.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner received a show-cause/demand notice for entry tax and raised objections, citing a pending exemption application before the High Level Screening Committee. Despite this, an RRC was issued for recovery. The petitioner argued that no assessment order had been passed, making the demand invalid. The respondents claimed the petitioner defaulted in paying advance tax. The court held that without a valid assessment order, no demand could be raised, emphasizing the necessity of an assessment order for recovery proceedings. The petition was allowed, quashing the RRC and directing no recovery without a valid assessment order.
2. Another recovery notice was issued for a higher amount, leading the petitioner to challenge the legality of the recovery proceedings. The respondents argued that the pending exemption application did not entitle the petitioner to exemption until granted. The court emphasized the importance of a valid assessment order for raising demands and initiating recovery. It directed the Department not to order recovery until a valid assessment order was passed, allowing the petitioner to raise all available pleas during assessment proceedings.
3. The petitioner's claim of exemption pending before the High Level Screening Committee was crucial in the case. The court highlighted the need for an early decision by the Committee to prevent harassment of the petitioner. It directed the petitioner to present the court's order before the Committee for necessary action, emphasizing the importance of timely decisions on pending applications to avoid unnecessary trouble for the petitioner.
4. The judgment emphasized the significance of a valid assessment order for raising demands and initiating recovery proceedings. It criticized the Department for overlooking this basic principle of tax law in their haste to recover the amount. The court's decision to quash the RRC and halt recovery until a valid assessment order was passed underscored the importance of following legal procedures and principles in tax matters to prevent undue hardship on taxpayers.
-
2008 (9) TMI 901
Issues:
1. Scope of rule 29(v) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949 regarding intra-State sales and sales of goods in the course of export outside India.
2. Interpretation of section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for allowing deductions from the gross turnover of the dealer in respect of goods exported out of India.
3. Claiming exemption on export of goods out of India through an intermediary and not directly to foreign buyers.
Analysis:
1. The reference made under section 42 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 raised questions regarding the scope of rule 29(v) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949 in relation to intra-State sales and sales of goods in the course of export outside India. The key issue was whether the rule applied only to intra-State sales or also encompassed sales of goods for export. The assessee claimed deduction under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for exporting bone meal out of India through intermediaries in Bombay, which was not a direct contract with the foreign buyer.
2. The assessing authority disallowed the claim, stating that the sales were for export and not in the course of export. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to a conflict in the orders for different years. The judgment of the High Court highlighted previous decisions that emphasized the liberal approach of the State law in allowing deductions for goods exported out of India, whether directly by the dealer or through intermediaries. The court referred to earlier judgments that supported deductions for goods exported out of India, even if not done through direct contracts with foreign buyers.
3. The High Court relied on its previous judgments and held that the questions referred must be answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized the State law's liberal interpretation, allowing deductions for goods exported out of India through intermediaries. As a result, the reference was disposed of in favor of the assessee based on the established legal principles and precedents set by earlier court decisions.
-
2008 (9) TMI 900
Issues:
Petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for transit pass issuance when goods are sold outside Karnataka.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a trader of waste engine oil, loaded a consignment from Namakkal to Kolhapur in Maharashtra. Upon reaching the Attibele check-post in Karnataka, discrepancies in the documents were found, leading to a penalty of Rs. 10,000. Despite providing confirmation, the vehicle was stopped again on a subsequent date with similar issues. The petitioner approached the court, alleging harassment by the authorities for not issuing transit passes.
The court examined Section 54 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which mandates the issuance of transit passes for inter-state transportation of goods. Rule 161 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, outlines the procedure for obtaining a transit pass, emphasizing the submission of an application in the prescribed form. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that an application was made in the specified format for the transit pass, solely relying on oral requests made by the driver.
The court clarified that a mere oral request without a formal application does not compel the authorities to issue a transit pass. Compliance with the legal requirements, including submitting a written application in the prescribed form, is essential for the issuance of transit passes. Since the petitioner did not fulfill this prerequisite, the authorities were not obligated to provide the transit pass. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.
-
2008 (9) TMI 899
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in its finding that firewood is an unclassified item and will not fall under entry 8 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act?
Held that:- The user test is only logical but is again inconclusive. The particular use to which an article can be applied in the hands of a special consumer is not determinative of the nature of the goods. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the other tests which are commonly applied for interpreting the taxing entry need not be resorted to, since the facts in the instant case, clearly demonstrate that the commodity purchased and sold is only "firewood", and therefore, in our view, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in classifying the commodity as a residuary item falling under entry 156 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error on facts which would call for interference.
Accordingly, keeping in view the facts situation which is not disputed by either side, that, the assessee had sold the wood to the purchaser, namely, a Government company only as "firewood" and not as timber, while sustaining the orders passed by the Tribunal, we reject these revision petitions.
-
2008 (9) TMI 898
Best judgment assessment - penalty imposed - Held that:- The assessing authority has not independently applied his mind, but has merely adopted whatever that was done by the intelligence officer of the Department for the purpose of imposing penalty under section 45A of the Act. As already observed that the assessing officer is a quasi-judicial authority and while exercising his quasi-judicial function, he has to apply his mind independently and while doing so, can also take into consideration the findings of the intelligence officer of the Department and at any rate, that cannot be the sole basis. Thus cannot sustain the order passed by the assessing authority. Set aside the order passed and remand the matter to the assessing authority with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Revision allowed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 897
Order of TNGST assessment - Held that:- The assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05 is passed arbitrarily and without jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed without unnecessarily subjecting the appellant to the onerous and lengthy appellate proceedings, as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1960 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court] .
The assessment order, which is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 2392 of 2008(1), is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer to reframe the assessment by giving an opportunity to the appellant in accordance with law. For this purpose, the appellant is hereby directed to appear before the assessing officer on October 23, 2008 with relevant materials. The assessing officer shall proceed with, to frame the assessment, in accordance with law without being influenced by the D3 proposals of the Investigating Wing Officers.
-
2008 (9) TMI 896
Sales of ATMs - whetehr from Pondicherry to banks who are purchasers in Karnataka are local sales liable to tax under the KST Act and the KVAT Act?
Held that:- In the case on hand it is not a case of transfer of right to use the goods.It is also not a case of oral or implied transfer of the rights to use goods.There is a written contract between the parties for manufacture and supply of goods. The branch office at Bangalore, forwarded an order for transfer of goods upon receipt by them from the buyer to their factory at Pondicherry. The goods were manufactured according to the specifications of the buyer.Thereafter the goods were handed over to a carrier who delivered the goods at the buyer's place. The technicians at the registered office at Bangalore took delivery of the consignment at the buyer's place, opened the containers, checked and after it is found to be all right in all respects handed over the goods to the buyer. The buyer in turn has made the payment directly to the factory at Pondicherry. Though the goods for which orders were placed were not in existence at the time of placing of the orders, it is not a case of transfer of a right to use the goods. It is a case of sale of the goods. The placing of the orders occasioned the movement of the goods from Pondicherry to Bangalore. The goods, after they were manufactured, thus came into existence at Pondicherry and were moved to Bangalore. Therefore, it is immaterial where the goods were delivered.
In this case, there is a movement of goods from one State to another in terms of a contract of sale. It is an inter-State sale. The situs of the sale or purchase is immaterial in respect of inter-State trade or commerce. If the sale or purchase occasioned the movement of goods from one State to another then it constitutes an interState sale and the State Legislature has no competence to tax such sale as the sale is taxed under the CST Act. The KST Act or the KVAT Act is not applicable to such sale. The impugned orders passed are therefore contrary to the settled legal position and the statutory provisions and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly Writ petitions are allowed.
-
2008 (9) TMI 895
Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain appeal or revision under sections 37 and 38 of the TNGST Act, 1959 - Held that:- The intention of the Legislature is clear that on the coming into force of the repeal of Act No. 42 of 1992, the original provisions that were eclipsed during the currency of 1992 Act have again come into operation, in the sense, the superimposition of the words "Special Tribunal" for the words "High Court", faded out by giving way to the words "High Court" and the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeal or revision filed under sections 37 and 38 of the Act. By means of re-introduction of section 39, the same has to be considered by a Division Bench of the High Court.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that on and from the date of repeal of 1992 Act, the High Court will have jurisdiction to entertain appeal or revision under sections 37 and 38 of the TNGST Act, 1959, as the provisions re-emerged as they stood prior to the coming into force of the 1992 Act. The order, which is impugned in this review application, has to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside.
-
2008 (9) TMI 894
Issues:
Challenge to the correctness of the Tribunal's order deleting penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis:
The High Court, in this judgment, addressed the issue of challenging the correctness of the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court noted that the issue was similar to a previous decision in W.P. No. 23274 of 2002 dated October 26, 2007, where the Division Bench relied on the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) [2002] 125 STC 505. The court highlighted the importance of the best judgment assessment under section 12(2) of the Act, emphasizing that penalties could only be levied in such cases. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons [1971] 28 STC 700, which clarified the conditions under which penalties could be imposed, particularly in cases where assessments were made based on estimates rather than solely on account books.
Furthermore, the court discussed the legislative amendments to section 12 over the years, emphasizing that penalties could only be imposed in cases of best judgment assessments made on estimates and not solely relying on accounts furnished by the assessee. The court highlighted that assessments made on the basis of accounts, without estimates, were not subject to penalty provisions under section 12(3). Specifically, assessments for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, based solely on accounts and not estimates, were deemed not eligible for penalty under section 12(3). The court's analysis underscored the importance of the legislative intent behind penalty provisions and the need for assessments to be based on reasonable estimates rather than mere reliance on account books.
In conclusion, the court found that the issue at hand was squarely covered by the settled law and previous decisions, ultimately dismissing the revision against the Revenue. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing penalty provisions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of best judgment assessments and the limitations on imposing penalties based solely on account books without reasonable estimates.
-
2008 (9) TMI 893
Clarification to the rate of tax applicable to the goods in question - Circular challenged - Held that:- Any circular which beneficially affects the rights of dealers as it stood at the beginning of the assessment year will apply to the entire year and the modification/withdrawal of such circular will not be relevant for that current year but will only apply from the beginning of the next assessment year.
As it is clear that the second respondent has the power to withdraw the earlier circular issued.Though the subsequent circular would have the effect of nullifying the earlier circular as it is only an interpretation of the provision, it will not have the effect of denial of the benefit of earlier circular. In other words, the impugned circular has to be only prospective and not retrospective. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax at 12.5 per cent. for the period covered under the earlier circular and is liable to pay tax at 12.5 per cent., which arises only from the date of the impugned circular.
-
2008 (9) TMI 892
Grant of eligibility Certificate - Held that:- To ascertain as to whether the nature of goods produced and are to be produced is the same or different, it is necessary to discuss the articles as the revisionist has set up that earlier in the first eligibility certificate he was producing non-edible oil, i.e., the rice-bran oil and after diversification he started production of edible oils, which are all together different from the earlier goods produced by it. So far as the exercise of power by the Divisional Level Committee is concerned, if it is a case of review then no doubt under rule 25(3)(c) the same Divisional Level Committee, which has granted the earlier certificate, has the right to review its order, but if it is a case of fresh grant, then the authority to whom the jurisdiction is vested on the date of application shall have the right to entertain the same and it shall also be cleared after discussion on the nature of goods, for which the eligibility certificate was granted and has been asked to grant. The Tribunal shall also discuss the comparative specification of the goods. Under the circumstances, feel it appropriate to remand the matter to the Trade Tax Tribunal to consider it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in the matter. Therefore, hereby set aside the order dated January 9, 2004, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Appeal No. 77 of 2003 and remand the matter to the Trade Tax Tribunal for fresh decision, in view of the observations made hereinabove.
-
2008 (9) TMI 891
Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that a new commodity has emerged in the replacement of shell by merely tapping and heating?
Held that:- The petitioner being a public sector undertaking before filing an appeal against the Commercial Tax Department, we are of the view has to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes (CoD). In order to discharge that obligation, when we posed a question to the learned counsel as to whether such a clearance has been obtained from the CoD, he admitted that such a certificate from CoD has not been obtained.
Hence, the revision is dismissed as not entertainable in the absence of the clearance, however, by giving liberty to the petitioner to move this court after obtaining clearance from CoD.
-
2008 (9) TMI 890
Issues Involved:
The valuation of Laxmi Niwas property and the validity of the reference made under section 55A of the Income Tax Act.
Valuation of Laxmi Niwas Property:
The appeal questioned the valuation of the property by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was lower than the valuation done by the Government approved valuer. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the valuation issue was a matter of fact and not a question of law. The Tribunal cited precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that the reference to the DVO under section 55A was not valid in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention and ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Validity of Reference under Section 55A:
The Tribunal considered whether the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO under section 55A was lawful. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that in cases where the value of the capital asset shown by the assessee is more than its fair market value, the reference to the DVO is not valid. Relying on established legal principles, the Tribunal held that the reference made in the peculiar circumstances of the case was "bad in law." As a result, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee and dismissed the appeal based on the grounds presented.
This judgment by the Bombay High Court addressed the issues related to the valuation of Laxmi Niwas property and the validity of the reference made under section 55A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of legal principles and precedents in determining the outcome of such cases, emphasizing that factual findings and legal validity play crucial roles in resolving disputes related to property valuation and references under the Income Tax Act.
-
2008 (9) TMI 889
Issue of notice - non reply - provisional assessment - Held that:- As it is evident that the petitioners who have not only failed to comply with the notices and have not remained present with the registers, material for the purpose of assessment and even thereafter have not chosen to resort to the remedy as provided under the Act itself, cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the conduct of the petitioners would disentitle them from any indulgence by this court or exercise of discretionary relief. The petitioners cannot make a complaint that the assessment has not been made and there is any arbitrary or highhanded action inasmuch as there are specific notices issued to the petitioners and still they have failed and neglected to remain present for the purpose of assessment or clarification. Thereafter, as discussed hereinabove, in exercise of the powers under the Act, the Commissioner has proceeded to make the provisional assessment and attachment for which a grievance cannot be made.
Thus this court is of the opinion that no indulgence can be granted and it does not call for any interference in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-
2008 (9) TMI 888
Recovery proceedings - sale of property - auction sale - Held that:- In the present case, the procedure for selling the properties by revenue recovery proceedings, the legal procedure, was not followed. No wide publicity was given. The time gap provided under sections 36 and 38 of the TNRR Act was not followed. The right of the independent owners including the petitioner in W.P. No. 5324 of 2008 was infringed as no notice was given to him and his brother who were no way connected with the company. (Though such a notice was given to them when auction notice was issued during the year 2004).
In the light of the same, these writ petitions are liable to succeed and the impugned notice are bound to set aside. In the present case, on behalf of the company, one director K.K. Gnanaprabakaran had filed an affidavit of undertaking to pay a ₹ 45,67,264 together with five per cent interest as a precondition for setting aside the sale. Therefore, the petitioner-company in W.P. Nos. 3847 and 4378 of 2008 are directed to deposit as undertaken by them vide undertaking dated June 25, 2008 within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The sale made in favour of K. Govindaraj the successful auction purchaser is hereby set aside and the Commercial Tax Department is directed to refund the amount taken from the auction purchaser within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
-
2008 (9) TMI 887
Penalty imposed under section 29A of the KGST - Whether the transaction in question is inter-State transaction and hence section 29A of the KGST Act will not be attracted?
Held that:- The owner or person-in-charge of the goods vehicle had not produced the prescribed documents before the Check-post Officer and if not for the Check-post Officer detaining the goods vehicles, there was every possibility of the Revenue losing the tax due to the State.
The Sales Tax Officer, (Enquiry), has not just levied the penalty under section 29A(4) of the Act, merely on the ground that the goods was not accompanied by proper documents but also there was an attempt to evade tax due under the Act by the owner of the goods. Revision dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
