|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 835 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1041
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals after condoning the delay. (Citation: 2010 (4) TMI 1041 - SC)
-
2010 (4) TMI 1040
Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions after condoning delay. (Citation: 2010 (4) TMI 1040 - SC)
-
2010 (4) TMI 1039
Mandap Keeper Service – The petitioners are companies registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The main object of the petitioners is to encourage and promote the game of cricket and other different games and sports in the State of Gujarat and to provide facilities and infrastructure in connection with such games, sports and for other purpose - the decision in the case of KARNAVATI CLUB LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2009 (9) TMI 561 - Gujarat HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1038
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of training expenses by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 1998-99.
Training Expenses Disallowance Issue:
The Assessing Officer disallowed 4/5th of the training expenses claimed by the appellant, amounting to Rs. 20,96,127, stating that the benefit of these expenses was spread over five years. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The Tribunal noted that since the Assessing Officer had accepted that the expenditure was revenue expenditure and the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, there was no justification for not allowing the entire expenditure in the relevant year. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, as no perversity was identified, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal against the disallowance of training expenses was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to allow the entire training expenses claimed by the appellant for the assessment year 1998-99, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1037
Issues involved: CENVAT credit availed in excess, validity of invoices, demand for recovery, limitation period.
Summary:
CENVAT Credit Availed in Excess: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing steel forgings, axle shafts, and dies, received furnace oil from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. during a specific period and took CENVAT credit based on invoices. However, it was discovered that the credit availed was excessive as M/s. IOC had not considered the duty paid by CPCL, the original supplier. Additionally, the invoices did not comply with Rule 9(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Validity of Invoices and Recovery Demand: A show-cause notice was issued for the recovery of the excess credit availed. The demand, along with interest and a penalty, was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants contested this, arguing that the demand could not be upheld as it was unclear if any action was taken against M/s. IOC for passing on excess credit. Moreover, they contended that the demand was time-barred, as they only became aware of the excess credit issue in January 2006, upon receiving a letter from M/s. IOC.
Judgment: After hearing both parties, it was determined that the demand for recovery could not be sustained. The lack of action against M/s. IOC for passing on excess credit and the expiration of the limitation period were key factors in setting aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed, with any consequential relief due to the appellants to be granted in accordance with the law.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1036
CENVAT credit - subsequently exempted final goods - Tractors and parts used within the factory production for manufacturing of final goods - amendment of the scheme vide Notification dated 09.07.2004 - whether Cenvat credit availed by a dealer on such quantity of duty-paid inputs, which is used in the manufacture of subsequently exempted final goods, is liable to be reversed or not? - Held that: - it is not a matter of dispute that the assessee has paid the duty on inputs used in the indicated manufacturing of final goods, the assessee has maintained separate accounts/record, duly entered credit of duty-paid on the inputs in manufacture of final goods and validly availed the Cenvat credit. Therefore, the same cannot be reversed on the ground that the final product (i.e. agricultural Tractors) were subsequently exempted from tax - the assessee is held entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1035
Issues involved: Central Excise Duty shortage, Penalty imposition u/s 11AC and Rule 26, Clandestine removal of goods.
Central Excise Duty shortage: The Respondent company was found with a shortage of 25,781 litres of Organic Composite Solvent (OCS) during a stock taking exercise, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 1,02,031. Despite admitting the shortage and paying the duty the next day, no satisfactory explanation was provided. A show cause notice was issued, and penalties were imposed on both the company and its authorized signatory.
Penalty imposition u/s 11AC and Rule 26: The Assistant Commissioner upheld the duty demand and imposed penalties on the Respondent company and the authorized signatory. On appeal, the penalty on the company and the signatory was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing lack of evidence of clandestine removal and the prior payment of duty on the goods found short.
Clandestine removal of goods: The Revenue filed appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order seeking restoration of penalties on the Respondent company and its authorized signatory based on the suspicion of clandestine removal due to the unexplained shortage of goods found during stock taking.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, concluded that the significant quantity of OCS found short indicated clandestine removal. As per Section 11AC and Rule 26, penalties were warranted for the Respondent company and its authorized signatory. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the penalties and restored the Order-in-Original, allowing the Revenue's appeals.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1034
Issues Involved:
1. Misuse of Initial Public Offer (IPO) by the issuer company.
2. Allotment of shares to non-genuine employees.
3. Unlawful gains by the allottees.
4. Violation of SEBI Regulations.
5. Attribution of fraudulent intent to the company.
6. Applicability of the "directing mind" theory.
7. Civil vs. criminal liability under SEBI Act.
8. Miscellaneous applications by the appellant and intervenors.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Misuse of Initial Public Offer (IPO) by the Issuer Company:
The issuer company misused its IPO to the detriment of genuine investors, including its employees, by allotting 98.5% of the shares reserved under the employee category to seven chosen individuals who were not genuine employees. The company came out with an IPO in December 2006, reserving 4,22,200 shares for its employees. However, 98.5% of these shares were allotted to seven persons who joined just before the IPO and left soon after.
2. Allotment of Shares to Non-Genuine Employees:
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) found that the allottees were not genuine employees and that the company had orchestrated the scheme to enable these individuals to appropriate the employees' quota of shares. The company justified the selection and recruitment of these individuals on the grounds of business necessity, but failed to provide credible evidence of their genuine employment. The whole time member found several discrepancies, such as the absence of these individuals' names in the attendance register and payment of salaries in cash, which mitigated against their being genuine employees.
3. Unlawful Gains by the Allottees:
The seven allottees sold the shares within three days of listing on the stock exchange, making an unlawful gain of more than Rs. 2.31 crores. The whole time member concluded that there was no material on record to indicate whether the appellant company shared the ill-gotten gains, but the complicity and connivance of the company were established.
4. Violation of SEBI Regulations:
A common show cause notice was issued to the seven individuals and the appellant company for violating Regulations 3(b) and 3(c) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. The company was found to have used a manipulative or deceptive device in connection with the issue, purchase, or sale of securities, and employed a scheme to defraud in connection with dealings in securities.
5. Attribution of Fraudulent Intent to the Company:
The appellant argued that the company, being an artificial juristic person, could not have a guilty mind and that fraudulent intent could only be attributed to responsible officers of the company. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the theory of the "directing mind" applies primarily to criminal liability and not to civil proceedings under the SEBI Act, which are of a civil nature and do not require mens rea.
6. Applicability of the "Directing Mind" Theory:
The Tribunal noted that the theory of the "directing mind" is a criminal law doctrine developed to attribute a state of mind or mens rea of responsible officers to the corporation. However, this theory has no application in civil proceedings under the SEBI Act, where mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalties for breach of civil obligations.
7. Civil vs. Criminal Liability under SEBI Act:
The Tribunal emphasized that civil action could be taken against a delinquent for a criminal act and that proceedings initiated by SEBI under the Act are civil in nature. It referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in SEBI vs. Cabot International Capital Corporation and the Supreme Court's approval of this view in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund, stating that mens rea is not essential for imposing civil penalties under the SEBI Act and Regulations.
8. Miscellaneous Applications by the Appellant and Intervenors:
The appellant company filed an application seeking permission to disinvest shares in its subsidiary, which was rejected as it would contravene the impugned order restraining the company from dealing in securities. Another application by three shareholders to intervene was also rejected, as it appeared motivated and lacked locus standi.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1 lakh, and the Tribunal upheld the impugned order restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market and dealing in securities for seven years. The Tribunal found the appellant company guilty of violating SEBI Regulations and engaging in fraudulent practices, thereby depriving genuine investors and employees of their rightful shares.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1033
Issues Involved:
1. Short landing of goods.
2. Proper documentation and evidence.
3. Delays in adjudication.
4. Legal validity of documents and statements.
5. Compliance with Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Short Landing of Goods:
The case originated from the reported short landing of items L-84, TP-122, L-110, and 13 as per the Mumbai Port Trust (MBPT) outturn report. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty for item no. 13 but dropped proceedings for the other items. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that item no. 13 was correctly penalized as the short landing was proven by duty payment and refund claims. However, the revision application argued that short landing for items L-84, TP-122, and L-110 was also established based on MBPT reports and other documents.
2. Proper Documentation and Evidence:
The revision application emphasized that the MBPT outturn report and the Import General Manifest (IGM) are valid legal documents under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had relied on letters from clearing agents and importers without supporting documentary evidence, which the revision application contested. The Government agreed, stating that legal documents like the IGM and MBPT report hold more evidential value than statements or correspondence without verifiable documents.
3. Delays in Adjudication:
The respondents argued that the long delay in adjudication (from 1997 to 2006) should lead to the rejection of the revision application. However, the Government noted that the delays were primarily due to the respondents' lack of timely responses to queries and notices. The proceedings were initiated within a reasonable time, and the delay cannot be solely attributed to the department.
4. Legal Validity of Documents and Statements:
The Government concluded that the IGM and MBPT outturn report are valid legal documents for proceedings under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statements or letters from importers and clearing agents without supporting evidence cannot override the legal sanctity of these documents. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) erred in giving undue weight to such unsupported statements.
5. Compliance with Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Government held that the respondents failed to account for the short-landed goods to the satisfaction of the proper Customs Officer, as required under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The short landing of items L-84, TP-122, and L-110, in addition to item no. 13, was established based on the IGM and MBPT report. The original adjudicating authority is directed to decide the case afresh, considering these findings and after affording a reasonable opportunity for the respondents to produce requisite documents.
Conclusion:
The revision application succeeded, and the impugned orders were set aside. The case was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in light of the Government's findings. The Government emphasized the importance of adhering to legal documentation and procedures as prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1032
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as on-money receipt.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- as unexplained expenditure of interest payment.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 70,000/- as unexplained investment in fencing.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6.70 lakhs as suppression of sale consideration.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 7,11,330/- as suppression of sale consideration.
6. Deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 1,48,204/-.
7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5.72 lakhs as suppression of sale consideration.
8. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,58,530/- as sale consideration out of books.
9. Deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 2,17,245/-.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as on-money receipt
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 11,00,000/- added as unexplained investment by the assessee. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment for fresh examination, but the AO re-added the amount after examining the partners of M/s. Modern Properties. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the decision in Ruby Builders and Nishant Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., stating that any addition could be made u/s 69C and would be nullified by the expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing the Gujarat High Court decisions in CIT Vs. Star Builders and Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT, which held that such payments are revenue expenditure and deductible u/s 37.
Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- as unexplained expenditure of interest payment
The AO added Rs. 1,30,000/- as interest paid for delayed payment of Rs. 11 lakhs. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the same reasoning as in Issue 1.
Issue 3: Deletion of addition of Rs. 70,000/- as unexplained investment in fencing
The AO added Rs. 70,000/- for unexplained investment in fencing. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the same reasoning as in Issue 1.
Issue 4: Deletion of addition of Rs. 6.70 lakhs as suppression of sale consideration
The AO added Rs. 6.70 lakhs, alleging the sale of land to Shri Atul Dalmia was below market value. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the AO's inference was guesswork without evidence of extra money received. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing its own decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 1996-97 and the Allahabad High Court decision in CIT Vs. Smt. Rajkumari Vimla Devi.
Issue 5: Deletion of addition of Rs. 7,11,330/- as suppression of sale consideration
The AO added Rs. 7,11,330/- for the sale of land to Smt. Ushaben Gandhi, claiming the transaction occurred in A.Y. 1997-98. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the sale was in A.Y. 1998-99. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing Gujarat High Court decisions in CIT Vs. Motilal C. Patel & Co. and CIT Vs. Ashaland Corporation, which held that profit is recognized only upon completion of sale.
Issue 6: Deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 1,48,204/-
The AO disallowed interest expenditure, claiming the loan was for agricultural purposes. The CIT(A) found the loan was used for business purposes and allowed the interest. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, as the finding was uncontroverted.
Issue 7: Deletion of addition of Rs. 5.72 lakhs as suppression of sale consideration
The AO added Rs. 5.72 lakhs for the sale of land to Shri Jitendra Patel and Shri Ashok Patel, alleging it was below market value. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the same reasoning as in Issue 4.
Issue 8: Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,58,530/- as sale consideration out of books
The AO added Rs. 3,58,530/- for the sale of land to Smt. Ushaben Gandhi on a protective basis. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the same reasoning as in Issue 5.
**Issue 9: Deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure
-
2010 (4) TMI 1031
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, `the Limitation Act') can be invoked by this Court for allowing the aggrieved person to file an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Electricity Act') after more than 120 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity?
-
2010 (4) TMI 1030
Issues Involved:
1. Undervaluation of accounted clearances.
2. Clandestine manufacture and clearances.
3. Clubbing of clearances for determining SSI exemption.
4. Confiscation of goods and currency.
5. Penalty imposition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Undervaluation of Accounted Clearances:
The Commissioner found that the appellants had undervalued clearances of plywood and blockboards during the material period. The evidence included a letter dated 15-7-1996 seized from a dealer and the office of Shri Mohammed Arabi, indicating revised prices for different varieties of plywood. Statements from various employees and dealers corroborated that the actual prices charged were higher than those quoted in invoices, and the differential amount was collected in cash. The Commissioner rejected retractions of initial statements made by employees, finding them unreliable due to the lapse of time and lack of substantiation. The adjudicating authority's findings were based on strong circumstantial evidence and sound reasoning.
2. Clandestine Manufacture and Clearances:
The Commissioner relied on private records seized from the offices of the appellants, which included details of production, removal, and sale of excisable goods. These records were admitted to be authentic by the employees who maintained them. Invoices used for transportation of goods corroborated the entries in these records. The Commissioner found that the appellants had engaged in clandestine clearances based on these private records and statements from employees and dealers. The findings were supported by strong circumstantial evidence and sound reasoning.
3. Clubbing of Clearances for Determining SSI Exemption:
The Commissioner dropped the proposal to club the clearances of all the appellant units, failing to find that they operated as a single unit. The proposal to club clearances contained in 12 periodical show cause notices was also dropped.
4. Confiscation of Goods and Currency:
The Commissioner confiscated plywood valued at Rs. 2,86,389.20 seized from Shri Khaleel Rahiman and plywood valued at Rs. 15,056.20 seized from Shri Mansarool Huck under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, with options to redeem the same on payment of fines. The penalties imposed on Shri Khaleel Rahiman and Shri Mansarool Huck were found to be legal and proper. The Commissioner dropped the proposal to confiscate the currency of Rs. 20,66,940/- for want of evidence that it represented sale proceeds of clandestinely cleared excisable goods.
5. Penalty Imposition:
Penalties were imposed on the appellants and individuals for their involvement in evasion of duty. The penalties were to be readjudicated after the requantification of liabilities of the assessees.
Conclusion and Remand:
The Commissioner's findings on undervaluation and clandestine clearances were upheld based on the principle of preponderance of probability. The cases were remanded to the Commissioner to take a fresh decision on the claim that the turnover included proceeds from the sale of non-excisable goods. The penalties imposed on the appellants and individuals were to be readjudicated after the requantification of liabilities. Appeals against the order-in-original passed in adjudication of show cause notice No. 20/98, dated 20-3-1998, and appeals filed against liabilities confirmed against A5 were rejected. Other appeals were allowed by way of remand, with directions for fresh adjudication.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1029
Unexplained/unaccounted expenditure incurred on marriage ceremony - assessee, who is a chartered accountant by profession, got married during the year and has shown to have received various gifts on the occasion of his marriage. the assessee has not shown any expenditure on account of the marriage ceremony on the ground that such expenditure was borne by his relatives and friends - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee lost his father at the age of 14 and was leading a simple life style and the expenditure was incurred by his uncle. However, the assessee was unable to provide the details of the uncle along with his source of income and amount of expenditure incurred by him for the marriage ceremony of the assessee. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure.
Therefore, the addition of ₹ 4 lakhs appears to be on the higher side especially when the Department has no information as to the number of persons who attended the function, the place of function, lavishness of the expenditure, etc. We, therefore, deem it proper to restrict the disallowance to ₹ 2 lakhs which, in our opinion, will be reasonable. Grounds of appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
Deduction u/s 54F - amount received on sale of shares from M/s. Gold Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit and accordingly denied the relief u/s. 54F - HELD THAT:- As sale of such shares by the assessee through M/s. Gold Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd. as bogus on the ground that Mr. Choksi and his broking company were engaged in giving false share transaction bills. However, from the copy of the statement of Mr. Choksi, a copy of which is filed in the Paper Book, we find Mr. Choksi has not specifically mentioned the name of the assessee for obtaining benefit on sale of such bogus shares.
Considering the fact that the assessee had purchased the shares which were duly transferred to the Demat account, and, in absence of any allegation against the assessee by Mr. Choksi it cannot be said that the sale of the shares is bogus. In this view of the matter, we hold that the sale transaction entered into by the assessee is genuine transaction.
Since the AO has not disputed regarding the purchase of house property and since the assessee fulfils the conditions for treating the profit on sale of such shares as long term capital gain and fulfilled the conditions for allowability of deduction u/s. 54F, therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee. This ground by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1028
Whether the appellant could claim any of the recognised defences against the allegations of having committed defamation, as contemplated by Section 499 IPC?
Whether the complainants could at all be described as `aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Section 199 Cr.PC since that was linked to the question of whether the complaints had been made in a bonafide manner?
-
2010 (4) TMI 1027
Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the order of the ld CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07 regarding the taxation of rental income and deductions u/s 24(a) and interest on borrowed capital.
Issue 1: Taxation of Rental Income
The AO treated the rental income as business income, but the ld CIT(A) directed it to be taxed as 'income from house property.' The Tribunal referred to past decisions confirming rental income assessment under the head 'income from house property,' dismissing the revenue's grounds.
Issue 2: Deduction u/s 24(a)
The ld CIT(A) allowed a deduction of &8377; 1,31,10,067/- u/s 24(a) for 'income from house property,' which the AO had not permitted. The Tribunal upheld this decision as consequential to the rental income assessment.
Issue 3: Deduction of Interest on Borrowed Capital
The appeal raised a concern about allowing a deduction of interest amounting to &8377; 69,77,030/- on the borrowed capital against the income from house property. The ld counsel argued for the deduction, stating it was claimed in the P&L account without disallowance by the AO. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the ld CIT(A)'s order, confirming the deduction.
In summary, the Tribunal upheld the ld CIT(A)'s decision to tax the rental income as 'income from house property,' allowed the deduction u/s 24(a), and confirmed the deduction of interest on borrowed capital. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1026
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled that Education Cess does not need to be paid again on the amount calculated for Customs duty on goods cleared by 100% EOU to domestic tariff area. The decision was based on a previous case and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1025
Entry No. 6 of the Notification No. 1626, dated May 21, 1994 challenged
Held that:- Entry 6(b) of Notification No. 1626, dated May 21, 1994 referred hereinabove is declared violative of articles 301 to 304 in so far it imposes higher rate of tax on the iron and steel than the iron and steel manufactured out of raw material purchased, on which tax has been paid within the State of U. P., it is declared that iron and steel imported by the petitioner from outside the State of U. P. and sold inside the State of U. P. cannot be taxed at the rate higher than the rate prescribed in clause (a) of entry 6 of the above notification. The assessment order for the assessment year 1998-99 is liable to be set aside to this extent.
So far as the claim of refund of the excess amount deposited is concerned, the assessing authority may examine the claim of the refund in accordance to the provisions of sections 29 and 29A of the Act. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as stated above.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1024
Whether Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited does not require to pay the service tax insofar as the payments effected by it to the manpower supply agencies are concerned?
Held that:- In view of the assurance held out by the learned counsel for the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited that adequate money payable to the seven societies would always be available with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, we do not visualise any difficulty for the respondent to recover the assessed amount either from the societies or from the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited. Therefore, we allow the writ petitions for the present only on the ground that the impugned notice dated November 18, 2009 has been issued without being preceded by an order of assessment. The respondent is, therefore, at liberty to pass an order of assessment within a maximum period of three months from today.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1023
Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated March 25, 2008, challenged
Held that:- In view of our finding that the circular dated March 25, 2008 was issued on a consideration of the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 11130 of 2008 which was challenged at the instance of another manufacturer. Accordingly, W.A. No. 1152 of 2008 is dismissed. No costs. However, we make it clear that we are not giving any finding as to whether the synthetic fibre and synthetic fabric are one and the same or different commodities. It is open to the appellant in W.A. No. 1152 of 2008 to raise all those points before the assessing authority and it is for the authority to decide the issue on the merits and as per law.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1022
Compounded rate of tax - turnover exceeded ₹ 50 lakhs - circular dated August 29, 2007 - Held that: - Going by the Commissioner's clarification, the benefit of input-tax credit has to be extended to the assessee like the petitioner, the moment the petitioner's turnover exceeded ₹ 50,00,000 and that he would not eligible to be assessed under section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish the details of the turnover crossing ₹ 50,00,000. On such furnishing of the details, the respondent shall take into account the Commissioner's clarification and pass orders in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
