|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 835 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1021
Issues involved: Challenge to order dated November 2, 2009 under section 20(5) of the KST Act, dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.
Judgment Summary:
Challenge to Order dated November 2, 2009:
The petitioner contested the order dated November 2, 2009, contending that the appellate authority did not consider all aspects, including the submission of C forms. The petitioner argued that any errors in the assessment could have been rectified, and the appeal should not have been rejected solely based on the application filed. The Government Advocate, on the other hand, highlighted that the petitioners did not opt for rectification but directly filed an appeal under section 20(5) of the KST Act. Emphasizing the statutory provision that delays beyond 180 days cannot be condoned, the authority's decision to dismiss the appeal was deemed justified.
Dismissal of Appeal as Barred by Limitation:
Upon reviewing the order, it was noted that the appeal was dismissed due to being time-barred. The court acknowledged that the authority was correct in not condoning a delay exceeding 180 days. While rectification proceedings could have been an option in certain cases, the petitioner's lack of diligence, evident from the delay in approaching the court, led to the dismissal of the petition. Consequently, the court found no grounds to entertain the petition or provide any further relief, resulting in the disposal of the petition without any costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1020
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the distinction between consignment agency service and clearing and forwarding agency service.
2. Determination of service tax liability on the amount attributable to clearing and forwarding agency service.
3. Exclusion of the value of taxable service and service tax liability based on the definition of 'clearing and forwarding agent' under the Finance Act, 1994.
Analysis:
- Issue 1:
The Tribunal had drawn a distinction between consignment agency service and clearing and forwarding agency service. The Revenue challenged this distinction, arguing that a clearing and forwarding agency is liable to pay service tax. The court referred to a previous decision and held that a service receiver from a clearing and forwarding agent falls under the definition of taxable service. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was overturned in favor of the Revenue.
- Issue 2:
The Tribunal had ruled that the respondent was only liable to pay service tax on the amount attributable to the clearing and forwarding agency service, not on the entire amount reimbursed to M/s. BPL Ltd. The Revenue contended that the respondent should pay tax for the service received from a clearing and forwarding agent. However, the court considered the relevant period and cited a Supreme Court decision stating that no show-cause notice could be issued for collecting service tax before April 1, 1998. As the notice in this case was dated after that, it was deemed not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appeal.
- Issue 3:
The Tribunal had excluded the value of taxable service and the service tax liability based on the definition of 'clearing and forwarding agent' under the Finance Act, 1994. The court reiterated that the show-cause notice issued in this case was not in line with legal precedents and hence, substantial questions of law 2 and 3 were answered against the Revenue. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the above analysis and legal interpretations.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1019
Whether the assessee had no place of business, which was engaged in selling or purchasing in Agra?
Held that:- Considering the fact that the Tribunal has also not recorded any finding that the assessee had any storage space or store or any manufacturing unit in Agra from where it could have sent the beverages from Agra in U.P. to Rajasthan. The conclusion drawn that the assessee had made inter-State sales from Agra to Rajasthan is not justified. It makes no sense that the assessee which has no manufacturing unit would first get the goods in Agra and then send it to Rajasthan when it has available to do the beverage in Rajasthan itself, which is sent by sisters concern as stock transfer.
In view of the above, the imposition made to the extent of a turnover of ₹ 6 lacs is bad and not justified. The order of the Tribunal to this extent is set aside.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1018
Issues involved: Liability for payment of commercial tax for spirit supplied to Government warehouses prior to April 1, 1989.
The judgment by the Patna High Court addressed the issue of liability for payment of commercial tax by the petitioners for the spirit supplied to Government warehouses before April 1, 1989, which was then further supplied to manufacturers of country-made liquor. Initially, the Commercial Taxes Department accepted the petitioners' contention of no liability based on certain letters from the Excise Department. However, a revised order was issued imposing liability for the period before April 1, 1989. The dispute stemmed from conflicting views between the Excise Department and the Commercial Taxes Department, leading to the formation of a committee by the State Government to resolve such inter-departmental controversies. The court directed the issue to be referred to this committee for a thorough review and ordered that the interim restraint granted in 1996 would continue until the committee's decision, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution within four months.
In a related application, it was highlighted that payment for the spirit supplied to the State Government warehouses by an intervenor had not been made, despite the demand drafts being deposited and revalidated as per court directions. The court noted that interest on the due amount would cease on the date of the initial deposit of demand drafts. This matter was also referred to the State Government's committee chaired by the Chief Secretary for prompt consideration and direction regarding the payment of legitimate dues to the intervenor within the same timeframe. The court disposed of this application accordingly.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1017
Issues involved: Determination of long term capital gains, denial of benefit of cost and indexation, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), additional ground of appeal challenging assessment of received amount as long term capital gain.
Determination of long term capital gains: The appellant challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment of long term capital gains earned on the intended transfer of additional Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The Assessing Officer treated the long term capital gain for the assessment year 2002-03, while the appellant argued that the transfer was completed in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant's submissions were not accepted, leading to an appeal. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing a similar case where it was held that the receipts on the sale of assignment of rights to receive TDRs are not liable to tax. Consequently, the authorities erred in taxing the amount as income for the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions of Rs.12,62,619, providing relief to the appellant.
Denial of benefit of cost and indexation: The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer erred in determining long term capital gain by considering total receipts as capital, thereby denying the benefit of cost and indexation. However, the main issue focused on the taxability of the received amount as long term capital gain for a specific assessment year. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant on the taxability issue rendered the denial of cost and indexation benefit irrelevant in this context.
Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c): The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating the detailed working provided by the appellant for the calculation of long term capital gain in a subsequent assessment year and the precautionary payment of tax. This issue was not the primary focus of the appeal, as the Tribunal's decision primarily addressed the taxability of the received amount as long term capital gain. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were not discussed in detail in the judgment.
Additional ground of appeal challenging assessment of received amount as long term capital gain: The appellant sought admission of an additional ground of appeal challenging the assessment of an amount received upon the sale of additional TDR as long term capital gain. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal, considering it a purely legal issue based on undisputed facts of the case. The Tribunal's decision on the primary issue of taxability of the received amount as long term capital gain encompassed the additional ground of appeal, leading to the allowance of the appeal in favor of the appellant.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1016
Issues involved: Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings rejecting exemption claim for stock transfer turnover and higher tax rate imposition due to unavailability of declaration forms C and F. Application for fresh assessment based on available form F rejected for not filing within 90 days.
Assessment based on declaration forms: The petitioner's claim for exemption and concessional levy was rejected due to unavailability of forms C and F at the buyers' end, resulting in imposition of higher tax rate. The petitioner later obtained form F on January 12, 2010, but form C was still pending. The application for fresh assessment based on form F was rejected for not being filed within 90 days, as per Rule 4 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules, which allows modification of assessment order upon filing the declaration within the specified period.
Legal interpretation and decision: The Court examined the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules regarding the time limit for furnishing forms C and D. While the Central Sales Tax Rules do not specify a time limit, the State has the authority to set its own rules. The Court found that rejection of the claim based on the 90-day time limit under the Act was unjustified, considering the petitioner's reliance on other State dealers for the forms. Referring to a Full Bench decision, the Court emphasized that belated form C can be accepted with good and sufficient reasons. Despite the time limit prescribed under Pondicherry Central Sales Tax Rules, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to accept form F and grant relief to the petitioner, subject to assessing authority's satisfaction.
Conclusion: The Court allowed the writ petition, highlighting that the Rules in question were under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules, not the Central Sales Tax Rules. The respondent was directed to accept the form F submitted by the petitioner and provide necessary relief, while leaving open the question of the validity of such a rule. No costs were awarded, and related motions were closed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1015
Confiscation - redemption fine - import of rough diamonds - overvaluation - relationship between appellant and foreign supplier of goods - Held that: - C.B.E. & C. had prescribed re-export of goods in absence of any Kimberley Process Certificate and hence absolute confiscation of rough diamonds was not warranted in light of fact that K.P. certificate produced by appellant was valid - goods allowed to be re-exported without any redemption fine.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1014
Cancellation of the registration of the petitioners as dealer for resale of petrol and diesel in RC
Held that:- In cases where there has been violation of principles of natural justice writ would lie. The facts of the present case does not relate to assessment order but it is on cancellation of registration which affects the right of the petitioners to carry on business lawfully as guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is of no help to the respondent-Department at all.
In such view of the matter, following the abovesaid order stated supra, no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the impugned orders stand set aside and the writ petitions are allowed
-
2010 (4) TMI 1013
Whether Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) was an appropriate Assessing Authority for the respondent in view of the notification dated May 19, 1989 read with the definition of appropriate Assessing Authority under clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rules and whether Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) had concurrent jurisdiction to act as an Assessing Authority with the officer in whose circle the respondent was located and was competent to assess the respondent?
Held that:- The language of the notification dated May 19, 1989, is itself absolutely clear, whereby the Government of Haryana has appointed the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) to assist the Commissioner, Haryana and has further authorised him to perform the duties of the Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act, in addition to his duties as the Assessing Authority in a particular circle. Apart from the above, the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Devi Dass's case [1972 (5) TMI 53 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) has been authorized to perform his duties of Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. Thus question answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1012
Approval under the proviso to section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 to initiate the proceeding beyond the normal period and the notices dated August 30, 2007 issued in pursuance thereof challenged
Held that:- We are not impressed by the argument that the instant case is a case of change of opinion. The change of opinion necessarily postulates that the assessing authority had an occasion to consider the material earlier, and on the same set of facts another opinion was sought to be formed. The question of change of opinion cannot arise where there has been no previous proceeding of assessment in respect of a turnover in dispute. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed under section 21(2) of the Act are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside, inasmuch the notices under section 21 of the Act are based on no relevant material.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated August 18, 2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad and the notices issued under section 21(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2001-02 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act are quashed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1011
Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) is justified in imposing the penalty of ₹ 82,000 on the applicant for filing some of the tax returns late under section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 36(2)(c), Explanation (2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act relevant for the period July 1, 1981 to April 30, 1987?
Held that:- In the facts and under the circumstances of the present case, and on the correct interpretation of section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) in exercise of appellate powers had jurisdiction to initiate action for imposition of penalty for the first time.
The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the penalty under section 9(2A) of the Central Act read with section 36(2)(c) read with Explanation (2) can be levied in the present case for the months for which returns were in fact filed in time. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner had no power or jurisdiction to impose for the first time penalty that was never thought of nor imposed by the assessing authority. Hence questions (a) to (e) referred by the Sales Tax Tribunal by its order dated February 21, 2004 are answered accordingly in favour of the assessee/ appellant and against the Revenue. Decided in favour of the assessee/ appellant and against the Revenue.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1010
Whether the concessional rate of tax is subject to furnishing of C forms, which had to be obtained by the petitioner from the various persons who are registered dealers in other States to whom the goods are sold and on furnishing of the said C forms, concessional rate of tax at four per cent is levied instead of 15 per cent?
Held that:- The petitioner has utilized the C forms issued by the registered dealer who is a purchaser based on the fact that the said purchaser has been in existence and has validly issued the said forms. Therefore the authorities could not have been held that the petitioner had utilized the invalid C forms in order to claim concessional rate of tax.
Moreover, in the absence of there being any proof that the purchasing dealer had ceased to exist on July 1, 2002 and that the said fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner herein in the absence of such circumstances, the authorities had to levy tax at the concessional rate of four per cent on the basis of the C forms relied upon by the assessee and further the proceedings initiated with regard to the levy of penalty is also not in accordance with law. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed in the instant case are set aside and the petition is allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1009
Order dated August 12, 2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by exercising the power under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (suo motu revision) challenged
Held that:- It cannot be held that the consideration made by the assessing authority on all the material produced before it was improper and that the interest of the revenue was prejudiced. The respondent has proceeded on the fact that the contents of the proposition notice would in fact be proved and that cannot be so because it is only a prima facie opinion expressed by the Department and the same has to be adjudicated upon after taking all other materials and supporting documents which are furnished by the assessee. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the respondent herein dated August 12, 2008 is not in accordance with law and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the orders passed by the assessing authority is upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1008
Issues Involved:
1. Whether refrigerators can be termed as electric goods under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.
2. Validity of the penalty imposed under section 45D of the Act for not carrying the required declaration form.
3. Interpretation and applicability of the notification issued under section 45A(4) of the Act.
4. Consideration of the petitioner's claim regarding the opportunity to submit the declaration form as per the circular dated October 17, 2002.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether refrigerators can be termed as electric goods under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994:
The court examined whether refrigerators fall under the category of "electrical goods" as per the notification issued under section 45A(4) of the Act. The petitioner argued that refrigerators are separately listed in the Second Schedule and should not be considered electrical goods. The court considered several precedents, including *BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and *N.D. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala*, and concluded that refrigerators, being operated by electrical energy and answering the description of electrical goods, fall within the ambit of "electrical goods." The court emphasized that the term "electrical goods" has a wider connotation and includes items operated by electricity.
2. Validity of the penalty imposed under section 45D of the Act for not carrying the required declaration form:
The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for not carrying the declaration form as required under section 45D(1) of the Act. The court noted that the petitioner did not carry the declaration form for one of the trucks transporting refrigerators, which is a violation of the requirement under section 45A(5). The court held that the imposition of the penalty was in accordance with the law, as the petitioner failed to produce the declaration form at any stage, which is essential to prevent or check the evasion of tax.
3. Interpretation and applicability of the notification issued under section 45A(4) of the Act:
The court analyzed the notification dated August 2, 2005, which listed "electrical goods, cables, and electric wires" under item 16. The petitioner contended that the absence of the phrase "all kinds of" in entry 16 indicated a limited scope. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the term "electrical goods" itself is broad and includes refrigerators. The court emphasized that the notification aims to prevent tax evasion and should be interpreted to include all items operated by electrical energy.
4. Consideration of the petitioner's claim regarding the opportunity to submit the declaration form as per the circular dated October 17, 2002:
The petitioner argued that as per the circular, an opportunity should have been given to submit the declaration form before imposing the penalty. The court found that the petitioner did not request an opportunity to submit the declaration form at any stage and failed to produce it subsequently. The court held that the circular could not be invoked in this case, as the petitioner did not establish the facts necessary for its applicability. The court concluded that the penalty was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirement of carrying the declaration form.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that refrigerators are covered under the term "electrical goods" as per the notification issued under section 45A(4) of the Act. The imposition of the penalty for not carrying the required declaration form was upheld, and the petitioner's arguments regarding the opportunity to submit the form were rejected. The court emphasized the importance of preventing tax evasion and interpreted the relevant provisions and notifications accordingly.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1007
Issues:
1. Interpretation of tax rate on sale of gunny bags.
2. Consideration of composite transaction involving sale of cement in bags.
3. Application of estoppel based on previous tribunal decisions.
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of tax rate applicability on the sale of gunny bags. The Tribunal had to decide whether the sale of gunny bags should be taxed at 4% or 12%. The counsel for the respondent argued that previous tribunal decisions for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 had already determined that packing material should be taxed at its own rate, not based on the contents. Citing the principle of estoppel, it was contended that since the Revenue did not challenge those decisions for subsequent years, they cannot contest the same issue for the year 1995-96. The judgment referred to a previous case where it was held that if an issue has been accepted by the Revenue for subsequent years, it should apply for earlier years as well. Consequently, the question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
2. The second issue in the judgment pertains to the consideration of a composite transaction involving the sale of cement in bags. The Tribunal was asked whether it was justified in ignoring the observations of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner regarding the nature of the transaction. The counsel for the assessee relied on a Division Bench judgment from a previous case, emphasizing that if an issue has been accepted by the Revenue for subsequent years, it should be applicable for earlier years as well. Based on this argument, the question of law raised by the assessee was resolved in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
3. Lastly, the application of estoppel based on previous tribunal decisions played a crucial role in the judgment. It was highlighted that since the Revenue had not challenged the decisions of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, they were precluded from contesting the same issue for the year 1995-96. The judgment emphasized that the present case was squarely covered by a previous decision, and as a result, the reference was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1006
Whether when the goods are sold in form XVII, the Revenue cannot take action against the seller who has no obligation to enquire into whether the buyer is engaged in process of manufacture or utilised the goods sold for the abovesaid purpose?
Held that:- No hesitation in allowing the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the entire tax within a period of ten days from today. On such deposit, the appellate authority shall take up the appeal on file and hear the same on the merits. In the meantime, there shall be a stay of recovery of penalty imposed on the petitioner under section 16(2) of the Act.
In the circumstances,, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the recovery proceedings initiated by the second respondent subject to compliance with the above stated condition.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1005
Can the “financial difficulty” of the litigant be an adequate reason, for not satisfying the “additional court fee” prescribed under the relevant provisions of law to entertain the statutory appeal; for availing the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India ?
Held that:- The only question is whether the “financial difficulty” of the petitioner is a ground to exempt the petitioner from satisfying the statutory requirement of paying the additional court fee for entertaining the appeal and to have the merits of the case considered, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. No such proposition has been made by the honourable Supreme court in the above decision and no other decision in this regard has been brought to the notice of this court. Exhibits P15 and P16 applications preferred by the petitioner for exempting from such liability were rejected by the Tribunal as per exhibit P17, holding that there was no provision to provide such exemption. The correctness and sustainability of the impugned orders passed by the third and second respondents was subjected to challenge before this court, leading to exhibit P18 judgment declining interference in this writ petition; which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by passing exhibit P19; dismissing the writ appeal. This being the position, the attempt of the petitioner to reconsider the matter further, by raising the very same grounds of challenge through a fresh writ petition, cannot but be described as an abuse of the process of court.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1004
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of specifying raw jute as tax-free Schedule A goods for input-tax credit (ITC).
2. Discrimination against jute mill occupiers in ITC eligibility.
3. Interpretation of "taxable goods" under the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003.
4. Legislative intent and application of ITC provisions.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of Specifying Raw Jute as Tax-Free Schedule A Goods for ITC:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of specifying raw jute as tax-free Schedule A goods for ITC purposes under the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003. The argument was that this classification discriminates against jute mill occupiers compared to other dealers of raw jute and other taxable goods. The petitioners argued that such classification is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
2. Discrimination Against Jute Mill Occupiers in ITC Eligibility:
The petitioners contended that jute mill occupiers are unfairly denied ITC on purchase tax paid for raw jute, unlike other dealers who enjoy ITC. They argued that the legislative act of placing raw jute in Schedule A, making it tax-free at the point of sale, discriminates against jute mill occupiers who pay purchase tax under Section 11 of the VAT Act. The respondents countered that the classification is based on intelligible differentia and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation, which is within the Legislature's discretion in taxation matters.
3. Interpretation of "Taxable Goods" Under the West Bengal VAT Act, 2003:
The core issue revolved around the interpretation of "taxable goods" as defined in Section 2(47) of the VAT Act, which excludes goods specified in Schedule A. The petitioners argued that raw jute, despite being listed in Schedule A, should be considered taxable for ITC purposes because it is subject to purchase tax under Section 11. The judgment clarified that raw jute, being subject to purchase tax, should not be treated as non-taxable for ITC purposes, emphasizing that the legislative intent was not to deny ITC on purchase tax paid for raw jute.
4. Legislative Intent and Application of ITC Provisions:
The judgment highlighted that the legislative scheme of the VAT Act intended to provide ITC on purchase tax paid by registered dealers, including jute mill occupiers. The court noted that the legislative intent was to allow ITC for purchase tax paid on raw jute, as evidenced by the provisions of Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the VAT Rules, 2005. The court concluded that the legislative framework supports the entitlement of jute mill occupiers to ITC on purchase tax paid for raw jute, subject to the production of valid documents proving tax payment.
Conclusion:
The court declared that jute mill occupiers are entitled to ITC on the amount of tax paid under Section 11 of the VAT Act on the purchase of raw jute within the existing framework of the VAT Act and Rules, unless found inadmissible under Rule 20. The application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1003
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is a "dealer" under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Whether the petitioners are liable to pay sales tax on the sales of motor vehicles hypothecated to them as securities for loan realization.
3. Whether the sales of hypothecated vehicles can be considered sales by the bank and non-banking finance companies.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the petitioner is a "dealer" under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003:
The Tribunal examined whether ICICI Bank and non-banking finance companies qualify as "dealers" under the VAT Act. The definition of "dealer" in section 2(11) of the VAT Act includes any person who carries on the business of selling or purchasing goods in West Bengal. The Tribunal noted that the definition has two parts: the main part and the inclusive part, which broadens the scope to include various entities.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, which held that the sale of pledged goods by a bank is part of its banking business and falls within the definition of "dealer" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that ICICI Bank, being a banking company, is a dealer under the VAT Act as it is engaged in the business of selling goods as part of its banking operations.
For non-banking finance companies, the Tribunal noted that these companies provide loans for purchasing vehicles and obtain irrevocable powers of attorney from borrowers to sell hypothecated vehicles in case of default. The Tribunal found that these companies act as agents of the borrowers and come within the scope of section 2(11)(d) of the VAT Act, making them dealers.
2. Whether the petitioners are liable to pay sales tax on the sales of motor vehicles hypothecated to them as securities for loan realization:
The Tribunal examined whether the sales of hypothecated vehicles are subject to sales tax under the VAT Act. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Bank Ltd., which held that the sale of pledged goods by a bank is a taxable sale under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the VAT Act's definition of "sale" includes any transfer of property in goods for valuable consideration. The Tribunal found that the sales of hypothecated vehicles by ICICI Bank and non-banking finance companies fall within this definition, making them liable to pay sales tax on such sales.
3. Whether the sales of hypothecated vehicles can be considered sales by the bank and non-banking finance companies:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the sales of hypothecated vehicles are sales by the bank and non-banking finance companies. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Bank Ltd., which held that the sale of pledged goods by a bank is a sale by the bank for the purpose of sales tax.
The Tribunal found that ICICI Bank, being a banking company, sells hypothecated vehicles as part of its banking business and in exercise of its statutory right under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, such sales are considered sales by the bank.
For non-banking finance companies, the Tribunal noted that these companies sell hypothecated vehicles under the authority derived from the hypothecation agreements and irrevocable powers of attorney executed by the borrowers. The Tribunal concluded that these companies act as agents of the borrowers and the sales are considered sales by the non-banking finance companies.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that ICICI Bank and non-banking finance companies are dealers under the VAT Act and are liable to pay sales tax on the sales of hypothecated vehicles. The Tribunal also set aside the threat of prosecution under section 93 of the VAT Act, noting that the legal questions raised by the petitioners were arguable and needed careful consideration. The respondents were allowed to initiate appropriate proceedings for assessment of taxable sales in accordance with the law.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1002
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the appellant was liable to pay VAT in respect of goods transferred by it to its agent on consignment basis?
Held that:- The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not correct in law in holding that the appellant was liable to pay VAT in respect of goods transferred by it to its agent on consignment basis. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
Notification No. F.4(3)/P-II/VAT/2005/1158 dated December 2, 2005 issued by the Commissioner, Value Added Tax to the extent it requires payment of value added tax on the supplies made by a principal to a consignment agent, even if such supply is not coupled with transfer of property in the goods to the consignment agent and the transaction between the parties otherwise does not amount to "sale" in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, is quashed. The demand notices impugned in the writ petition are hereby quashed. It will, however, be open to the Department to examine the nature of the transactions between the petitioner-company and its consignment agents in the light of the observations made in this judgment and thereafter proceed in accordance with law if it comes to the conclusion that the transactions between them constitute "sale" within the meaning of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
............
|
9911796707
