|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 787 Records
-
2007 (8) TMI 672
Treatment of jaljira under the category of "multi-ingredient packed masala" - Held that:- Obviously, at the time of initial assessment, jaljira was rightly considered and treated to be in residuary category and tax was levied at the rate of 10 per cent. Therefore, for the reason that in jaljira, near-about 75.18 per cent ingredients are mineral and chemical substances and remaining material is very low quantity of spices/masala, in my opinion, jaljira cannot be defined under the category of "multi-ingredient packed masala" because, it has an independent identity known as "jaljira", which is used as appetiser. Thus, the finding of the assessing authority and learned Tax Board, Ajmer deserves to be set aside and it is held that the respondent-department cannot treat jaljira under the category of "multi-ingredient packed masala" because it has independent identity, which is jaljira and can be defined as an appetiser for digestion. Revision allowed.
In these circumstances, these revision petitions are allowed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 671
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner.
2. Applicability of Section 37 and Section 60 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.
3. Doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Summary:
1. Refund of Excess Tax Paid by the Petitioner:
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Durgapur Steel Plant, sold products to various purchasers, collected full taxes, and deposited these with the State Exchequer. The petitioner claimed that due to ad hoc calculations insisted upon by sales tax authorities, they paid excess taxes for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01. The assessing authority confirmed excess payments of Rs. 16,56,723, Rs. 2,44,18,153, and Rs. 20,67,387.68 for these respective years. The petitioner sought directions for refunding these excess amounts.
2. Applicability of Section 37 and Section 60 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994:
The State Representative argued that refunds should be applied for by the customers u/s 37(3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. However, the petitioner contended that Section 37 was inapplicable as the taxes were collected lawfully at the time of realization, and the situation arose due to subsequent supply of declaration forms and eligibility certificates. The petitioner argued that the refund should be governed by Section 60, which mandates the assessing authority to refund excess tax either by cash payment or adjustment.
3. Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:
The Tribunal considered whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment could be invoked to deny the refund. The Supreme Court in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs explained that unjust enrichment occurs when a person retains money or benefits that belong to someone else. The doctrine is based on equity and applies universally, including to the State. The Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to refunds u/s 60 of the 1994 Act. The assessing authority must ensure that the excess tax was not collected from buyers before issuing a refund to the petitioner.
Directions:
The Tribunal directed the assessing authority to reopen the assessment proceedings to ascertain whether the petitioner paid any part of the excess tax itself and to identify buyers entitled to refunds. The petitioner must submit a statement with buyer details and supporting documents. The assessing authority should then refund the excess tax paid by the petitioner itself and communicate the order to the buyers. Buyers can apply for refunds within four months, and the Commissioner should process these applications promptly. If the petitioner provides written consent from buyers, the refund should be issued to the petitioner.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for procedural modifications to effectively apply the doctrine of unjust enrichment and ensure prompt refunds. The Tribunal provided a detailed procedure for the assessing authority to follow until appropriate rules are framed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 670
Belated return - penalty imposed - Held that:- Admittedly, in the present case, the last date for filing returns for the financial year 2001-02 was April 20, 2002 and the petitioner-company have submitted their returns within the specified period. Though the assessment proceedings have been commenced in the year 2002 and the department issued a show-cause notice, dated July 28, 2004, the respondent has passed the impugned assessment order only on July 30, 2007, after three years from the date of issue of notice. It is explicit under section 8(5) that no order of assessment under sub-section (3) or (4) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns of the particular period.
The impugned order is set aside, in respect of its effect for the period between September 2001 to March 2002 and in respect of tax for the period from April 1, 2001 to August 17, 2002, the assessing authority has stated that the monthly tax due has been paid belatedly.Therefore, as regards the penalty under section 15(2) of the Act for the belated payment is concerned, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice, calling upon the petitioner to file their objection and provide an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under the Act. It is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only for the limited extent of penalty period between September 2001 to March 2002
-
2007 (8) TMI 669
Sales suppression - Held that:- In the absence of any materials to justify an estimation as had been done by the officer and confirmed by the Tribunal, and the possibility of fluctuations in the sales, we feel that an estimation 1/4th as had been adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner fixing the sales suppression at ₹ 1,60,760 would meet the ends of justice. As regards the other turnover included and sustained by the authorities below, we do not find any ground to disturb the same. In the circumstances, the order of the authorities below are confirmed to the extent that the taxable turnover is hereby confirmed to the extent of ₹ 1,50,760 towards sales suppression ₹ 83,180 on the wrong claim of deduction, ₹ 4,461 with gross profit at 10 per cent on the turnover falling under section 7A. As regards penalty of section 12(3)(b)(ii), we confirm the consequential levy of penalty and uphold the same proportionate to the turnovers upheld. W.P. allowed in part.
-
2007 (8) TMI 668
Whether impugned levy is discriminatory and violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution?
Whether entry tax on the goods imposes restriction on its movement and hence violative of article 301 and whether requirements of article 304(b) have, therefore, to be complied with?
Whether impugned levy is compensatory in nature?
Whether subsequent amendments to the principal Act require Presidential sanction under article 304(b), although the Presidential sanction was granted prior to enactment of the principal Act?
Whether section 3(4) of the impugned Act, as it stood till May 12, 2005, suffers from vice of excessive delegation of legislative functions?
Whether omission of section 3(4) in the impugned Act, by the Second Amendment Act, with effect from May 12, 2005, saves the actions taken under the said provisions of law, prior to May 12, 2005?
Whether the judgment passed would have prospective effect?
Whether refund of tax paid is permissible?
Held that:- The impugned levy is not discriminatory and therefore not violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution, except the discrimination as held above in respect of the principal Act as it stood prior to its amendment. The finding of the learned single judge in that regard is, therefore, upheld.
Admittedly before enactment of the principal Act the Presidential sanction was obtained. The State, however, has not even attempted by making necessary pleadings to prove that such discriminatory tax is reasonable and in public interest. On the contrary, the stand of the State is that once the Presidential sanction is obtained in case of a discriminatory tax the requirements of article 304(b), i.e., its reasonableness and in public interest, need not be proved. The contention of the learned AAG that tax is always imposed in public interest cannot also be accepted unless it is proved by the State that the tax impugned was in fact levied in public interest. Hence the levy by the principal Act, are unconstitutional being violative of article 301 of the Constitution. Thus the learned single judge has rightly decided the aforesaid question against the State.
In view of the working test laid down by the apex court in Jindal Stainless Ltd. [2006 (4) TMI 120 - SUPREME Court] in determining the compensatory nature of tax, and also in view of discussion, it is held that the impugned enactment does not satisfy the test laid down for compensatory tax and hence cannot be held to be compensatory in nature. The judgment and order of the learned single judge, is affirmed, on this point.
There being no dispute to the fact that no Presidential sanction/assent has been obtained for such amendments either prior to or after introduction of such amendments, the same are unconstitutional, as the previous Presidential sanction obtained prior to enactment of the Principal Act, cannot save the subsequent amendments. The said position, in fact, was known to the State as it has obtained Presidential sanction in respect of 7 items prior to the enactment of the Principal Act. The judgment and order of the learned single judge, in so far as it relates to this question, is, therefore affirmed.
The provision of section 3(4) of the Act, as stood prior to May 12, 2005, does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative function and hence the finding of the learned single judge, in that regard, is set aside.
The tax already realised and where no further proceeding is pending relating to such realisation of tax, the omission of section 3(4) of the impugned Act, without a saving clause, would have no effect, but the proceedings pending on May 12, 2005, from which date section 3(4) has been omitted, cannot be allowed to continue as the actions initiated under the said provision of law have not been saved and section 3(4) of the Act has been unconditionally omitted. Hence all the proceedings pending on May 12, 2005 relating to realisation of tax by virtue of the power conferred by section 3(4) of the impugned Act, have to be declared as null and void, without, however, affecting the proceedings, which have already been finalised prior to May 12, 2005. In that view of the matter, the judgment and order of the learned single judge is set aside to the extent indicated above.
no direction for refund of the tax paid can be issued by this court. Hence, the direction issued for such refund by the learned single judge is set aside. However, it is left open to the payers of the tax, concerning the present writ appeals and writ petitions, to approach the authority for refund of the tax paid and in the event of such approach being made by the payers of the tax, the authority shall within 4 (four) months, thereafter, pass necessary order relating to refund, keeping in view the decision of the apex court in Mafatlal Industries case [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as well as the contention of the learned counsel for the assessees that the entry tax imposed cannot at all be passed on to the consumer in view of the different statutory provisions and also fixation of uniform selling price by the Government of India, in respect of certain specified goods.
-
2007 (8) TMI 667
Tax on entry of goods into local area - Held that:- Tax on entry of goods into local area having the effect of directly impeding the free movement of trade and commerce within the State is not compensatory in nature and falls within the ambit of article 301 of the Constitution of India. Until it is enacted in terms of the provisions of article 304(b), it cannot be said to fall within the legislative domain of the State Legislature. The restriction under article 301 of the Constitution has been found to be a constitutional restriction on the right of legislative competence to enact laws in derogation thereof and saving from that clause has been provided under articles 302 to article 305.
When admittedly in the present case requirement of article 304(b) before enacting a law falling within the domain of article 301 has not been followed, the impugned Act must be held to be ultra vires to Chapter XIII of the Constitution in consonance with Atiabari's case AIR 1961 SC 232. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 is held to be ultra vires article 301. The demand raised against petitioner shall not be enforceable in case not already paid by the petitioner. However, if any amount is collected by the petitioner from its customer as entry tax, the same shall be allowed to be retained by it on proof that the burden thereof has not been passed on to buyers, consumers or users. If the burden has been so passed on to such other persons, the same shall be paid by the petitioner to the State Treasury within a month failing which such amount shall be recoverable from him. Likewise, any amount already paid by the petitioner as entry tax shall be refunded to him on proof of the fact that burden thereof has not been passed on to the users, consumers or buyers of such goods, as the case may be, as aforesaid. The petitioner may lay his claim for refund with required proof before the concerned assessing authority under the Commercial Taxes Department.
-
2007 (8) TMI 666
Non maintenance of books of accounts - Held that:- Admittedly, the applicant has not maintained the manufacturing account in accordance with section 12(2) of the Act. Merely because in the previous years for non-maintenance of manufacturing account, books of account has been accepted the claim of the applicant for acceptance of the books of account cannot be accepted in the years under consideration. Revision dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 665
Eligibility certificate denied - Held that:- It is now well-settled that where initially the unit was established over land which was taken on lease on the basis of unregistered document but subsequently rectified by a registered lease deed making it effective from earlier date, eligibility would not be denied nor could it be reduced and made effective from the date of the registered deed. The dealer would be entitled to exemption under section 4A of the Act from the date of the first sale or otherwise as the case may be. Reliance has been placed on the various decisions of this court.
In this view of the matter the order of the Tribunal is set aside as also the decision of the Divisional Level Committee granting partial eligibility to the dealer. The Divisional Level Committee may issue revised eligibility certificate or amend the same as the case may be for the entire period admissible to the dealer with effect from the date of the first sale.
-
2007 (8) TMI 664
Whether the view taken by the Tribunal was too technical in rejecting the delay condonation application rather than having exercised its discretion in affording hearing on merits instead of shutting it out on technicalities?
Held that:- Present case relates to imposition of tax. If the dealer is permitted to file second appeal and it is heard on merits, it may succeed and may not be liable to pay tax. Such an opportunity should be given to a party who may be entitled to establish that it was not liable to pay any tax. Liability of unlawful tax is not comprehended in law.
Thus it will be just and proper that the second appeal of the dealer may be decided on merits. The impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the delay condonation application is set aside. The delay in filing the second appeal is condoned. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merit
-
2007 (8) TMI 663
Issues:
Dispute related to assessment year 1989-90 - Legality of Trade Tax Tribunal accepting dealer's taxation declaration despite suppressed sale detected by Trade Tax Officer, SIB.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment year 1989-90, focusing on whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in accepting the dealer's taxation declaration despite the Trade Tax Officer, SIB, detecting suppressed sales during scrutiny of records from the Central Excise and Custom Department of Kanpur. The dealer, a manufacturer of M. S. ingot, initially had an assessment order passed in 1994 accepting the account books and determining a taxable turnover with a tax liability. Subsequently, the assessing officer, SIB, identified discrepancies in turnover leading to a reassessment with a higher turnover and tax liability. The dealer appealed this reassessment, and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) remanded the matter for a fresh assessment. The dealer then appealed to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, referencing past court decisions, emphasized that high electricity consumption alone cannot justify reopening of assessment. It was highlighted that the assessing officer must present concrete evidence of turnover escapement to warrant proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Mere speculation based on electricity consumption levels is insufficient to support reopening of assessment. The Tribunal concurred with previous court rulings on this matter, reinforcing the necessity of substantial evidence to allege turnover escapement and validate reassessment under the Act.
In the final judgment, the court found the revision lacking merit and subsequently dismissed it. The decision was made without any order regarding costs. The ruling upheld the principle that reopening assessments based solely on high electricity consumption without concrete evidence of turnover escapement is not legally justified under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
-
2007 (8) TMI 662
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 28(6) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act for turnover tax for years 2000-01 to 2004-05 based on works contract definition.
The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in this case dealt with the challenge to an order passed u/s 28(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, levying turnover tax for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. The dispute arose from an agreement between the petitioner and another party for the construction of a multistoried apartment on land owned by the latter. The agreement stipulated that the landowner would contribute the land, and the petitioner would provide materials and manpower, with a division of built-up space. The petitioner marketed the built-up area to purchasers, comprising two components: a portion of undivided interest in the land and the constructed flats.
The main contention raised was regarding the definition of "works contract" and the transfer of property. It was argued that as per the definition, property passes for accretion to the landowner, and therefore, a non-owner cannot be a transferee effecting a purchase and should not be liable to pay turnover tax. The petitioner disputed the applicability of the judgment in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka [2005] 141 STC 298, cited by the learned single judge, and relied on earlier decisions by the apex court and Allahabad High Court to support their case.
The High Court, after considering the arguments, upheld the decision of the learned single judge based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation [2005] 141 STC 298. The court noted that the facts and circumstances were similar to the present case, making the application of the precedent just and proper. It was emphasized that the judgment in K. Raheja's case is binding on all courts in the country u/s article 141 of the Constitution of India. The court also highlighted that if the appellant wished to challenge the precedent, they could approach the apex court for a review, as the High Court could not substitute its findings on the matter already decided by the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the case and rejected the appeal, affirming the order for levying turnover tax based on the works contract definition and the precedent established in K. Raheja's case.
-
2007 (8) TMI 661
Issues:
Challenge to refusal of way-bills issuance by ACST/JB based on grounds of financial position, payment evidence, and dealer's soundness for bulk purchases.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioners, a company registered under the VAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jorabagan Charge's refusal to issue way-bills for importing goods into West Bengal. The ACST/JB denied the application citing various reasons: lack of payment evidence to consignors, absence of advance receipts from buyers, failure to show intended buyers, and doubts on the dealer's financial soundness for bulk purchases. The petitioners argued compliance with rule 110 of the VAT Rules, emphasizing the authority's duty to verify particulars and assess reasonableness of way-bill requirements for the next six months.
The learned Advocate highlighted the petitioners' regular tax compliance, advance tax payments, and previous rulings emphasizing the importance of way-bills for business continuity. The State Representative argued that assessing authorities can demand documents to ascertain immediate way-bill requirements, citing a previous Tribunal decision rejecting an application due to lack of evidence on immediate necessity. However, the Advocate contended that the petitioners submitted purchase orders and complied with procedural formalities, making a strong case for way-bill issuance.
The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of immediate way-bill satisfaction for business operations, directing the ACST/JB to issue 20 way-bills to the petitioners upon application submission and disclosure of dealer names. The judgment emphasized the need to consider the applicant's circumstances and the essence of rule 110 to ensure business continuity. The Judicial Member concurred with the decision, emphasizing the importance of prompt disposal of way-bill applications within 48 hours.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on balancing the immediate business needs of the petitioners with the assessing authority's duty to verify requirements. The ruling emphasized the significance of way-bills for business operations and directed the issuance of 20 way-bills to the petitioners to facilitate their import business in West Bengal.
-
2007 (8) TMI 660
Benefit of exemption from tax - Held that:- It is clear from annexure 2 that the District Level Screening Committee has very specifically mentioned in the exemption certificate that the petitioner was entitled to exemption from the tax liability up to the extent of 75 per cent, therefore, the notices issued by respondent No. 5 are just against the exemption certificate. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the notice dated May 31, 2005 (annexure 8) as well as notice dated June 7, 2005 (annexure 9) issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Sriganganagar are set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (8) TMI 659
Input tax credit on the goods purchased from outside the State - Held that:- The contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law in view of the specific provision under section 19(5)(b) of the Act. Rule 10(3)(b)(i) refers to the purchase of goods other than capital goods, which have been effected on the first seller in the State and therefore, rule has to be read as a whole and 10(3)(b)(iv) cannot be read in isolation. The object of the enactment is if a dealer purchases goods within the State of Tamil Nadu and pays tax to another registered dealer, then he is entitled to take the input credit of the tax paid or payable under this Act and not intended to permit the dealer to avail input credit in respect of tax on the goods brought into the State by purchase effected from outside the State.
Thus the petitioner is not entitled to avail input tax credit on the goods purchased from outside the State. No infirmity or illegality in the assessment order of the respondent and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to make an application seeking refund of excess payment or adjustment of the tax paid under section 19(17) and (18) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to the authorities and on receipt of such application, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2007 (8) TMI 658
Input tax credit on Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) - whether LSHS and LPG are the products falling under section 13(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with rule 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005?
Held that:- We have been told that LSHS and LPG are obtained from refineries at the last stages of fractional desalination and is therefore called residual petroleum product also. If all the petroleum products were sought to be included in Schedule VI then, in our view, there was no need to have four items. Only one item would suffice to say all petroleum products. Therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the assessing authority cannot be sustained, as LSHS and LPG are not covered by Schedule VI of the Act. W.P. allowed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 657
CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by one M/s J and J Precision Industries have cleared the final products on payment of duty, by availing irregular and illegible Cenvat Credit on the inputs received by them
-
2007 (8) TMI 656
Whether the State has the power to levy taxes on declared goods at a rate higher than three per cent, when there is deemed sale of such goods in the course of execution of works contract?
Whether the goods, which are declared to be goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce and known as declared goods are, even if used in the execution of works contract, subject to the restrictions or limitations imposed on the legislative power of the State by section 15 of the Act of 1956, so far as, at least, the rate of tax is concerned?
Held that:- While the State, under the Scheme of the Assam VAT Act, 2003, is competent to levy sales tax on transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract at 12.5 per cent, such transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract will not exceed three per cent if the goods involved in the execution of works contract are declared goods. Thus, the impugned order, dated April 10, 2007 which holds that the tax is imposable at 12.5 per cent on both declared as well as undeclared goods is wholly without jurisdiction and not supported even by the scheme of the Act under consideration.
In the result and for the reasons discussed above, these two writ petitions succeed. The impugned order, dated April 10, 2007, is hereby set aside and quashed and it is held that the Assam VAT Act, 2003, does not permit the respondents/authorities concerned to impose tax at 12.5 per cent on transfer of such goods, which have been declared as goods of special importance under section 14 of the Act of 1956, and that on such declared goods, rate of tax cannot exceed three per cent (as amended); whereas transfer of property in goods, which are not declared goods involved in the execution of works contract, would be subject to usual rate of tax of 12.5 per cent.
-
2007 (8) TMI 655
Violation of section 21 of the Punjab VAT Act - Held that:- Multiple taxation as claimed by the respondents would result in hampering the free movement of goods between the States as provided by article 301 of the Constitution and therefore would be prejudicial to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, and for the unity and integrity of the country. Therefore, we find that the petitioner has not violated section 21 of the Punjab VAT Act as has been claimed by the respondents.
For the reasons stated above, this petition succeeds. The notice dated day 2, 2007 (annexure P4) is quashed and respondents are saddled with costs of ₹ 10,000 which initially shall be paid by the respondent-State to the petitioner. In view of the fact that the Excise and Taxation Officer, respondent No. 2, is not impleaded in person we direct the respondentState to hold an enquiry and the costs of ₹ 10,000 be recovered personally from the officer who may be found guilty for having committed the lapse of detaining the goods.
-
2007 (8) TMI 654
Issues: Application for fresh certificate of registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 not submitted within the specified time limit leading to cancellation of registration.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, failed to submit an application for obtaining a fresh certificate of registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 within the stipulated time frame. The impugned order cancelling the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) assigned to the petitioner was challenged through a writ petition. The key contention revolved around the consequences of failing to meet the application deadline set by the new Act. The petitioner claimed to have sent an application before the deadline via ordinary post, which was disputed by the respondents who asserted they did not receive any such application.
The court examined Section 88(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which stated that a registered dealer under the previous Act would continue to be so until a fresh certificate of registration was granted under the new Act. The Act itself did not specify the repercussions of not applying for the new certificate within the designated time frame. The court highlighted Rule 4(8) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, which mandated registered dealers to file an application in a specific format before the specified deadline. It was noted that the time limit for application submission was set by subordinate legislation and not the statute, and neither the Act nor the subordinate legislation outlined the consequences of failing to apply within the stipulated time frame.
Consequently, the court held that the impugned order cancelling the registration should not have been issued solely based on the petitioner's failure to submit the application within the specified time. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to submit an application within one week. Upon receipt of the application, the first respondent was instructed to apply the provisions of Section 88(2) of the Act and take appropriate actions. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2007 (8) TMI 653
Issues:
Challenge to the provision of sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 as discriminatory and ultra vires of article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis:
The petitioner was assessed to commercial tax for a specific period and filed appeals against the orders passed by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority. The Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was repealed, and the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 came into force. The issue revolved around the requirement of depositing 50% of the balance due from the dealer after the order passed by the Appellate Board under the repealed act, as mandated by sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002. The petitioner challenged this provision as discriminatory and violating article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argued that the provision created inequality among dealers, as those who approached the High Court before the new act came into force were not required to make any deposit, while those who did so after the enactment had to deposit 50% of the balance due. The respondents contended that under section 72 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002, as amended, no deposit was required for references against orders passed by the Appellate Board under the repealed act. This argument aimed to show that the deposit requirement under sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 did not apply to appeals made under section 53(2)(i) against the Appellate Board's orders under the repealed act.
The court, considering the concessions made by the respondents, held that the deposit provision of sub-section (5) of section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 would not apply to appeals made under section 53(2)(i) against the Appellate Board's orders under the repealed act. This decision ensured that there would be no discrimination between dealers who approached the courts before and after the enactment of the new act. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, resolving the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the discriminatory provision in the VAT Act.
............
|
9911796707
