|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 888 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1126
Issues Involved:
Penalty under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for substitution of examined packages with non-examined packages, specifically old cars with new imported cars from Unaccompanied Baggage containers at the docks.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty
The judgment revolves around the imposition of a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000/- each on the appellants under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved a situation where new imported cars were substituted with old and junk cars from Unaccompanied Baggage containers at the docks. The investigation revealed a criminal conspiracy involving various individuals, including the consignee, who were engaged in substituting high-value cars and selling them to the public based on forged documents. The appellants were accused of dealing with a tainted vehicle, leading to the penalty imposition.
Issue 2: Defense and Arguments
The advocates for the appellants argued that one of the appellants acted as a broker, facilitating the sale of the vehicle to another appellant. They contended that there was no corroborative evidence to prove that the appellants were aware of the vehicle's tainted nature. The absence of a statement from the original owner raised doubts about the knowledge of the appellants regarding the vehicle's status. The defense relied on legal precedents to support their argument that penalties cannot be imposed based solely on presumptions without concrete evidence.
Issue 3: Department's Position
On the contrary, the Department argued that the appellants, especially the broker, were aware of the market price of the vehicle and dealt with it at a significantly lower rate, raising suspicions about their involvement in the tainted vehicle transaction. The Department contended that the appellants could not be considered bona fide purchasers due to the discrepancy in the purchase and sale prices of the vehicle.
Judgment and Conclusion
After considering the arguments from both sides, the judgment concluded that the penalty was imposed solely on the grounds of dealing with a vehicle below its market price without substantial evidence of the appellants' knowledge about its tainted nature. The judgment highlighted the importance of personal involvement in illegal importation for penalty imposition. It emphasized that penalties cannot be imposed based on presumptions alone. As the appellants were not directly involved in the importation or registration of the vehicle, and no concrete evidence proved their knowledge of the vehicle's status, the penalty was set aside, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, based on evidence, presumptions, and personal involvement in unlawful activities.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1125
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on various items received by the appellant.
2. Denial of credit taken on extra copy/buyer's copy of invoices.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.
Detailed Analysis:
Entitlement to Cenvat Credit:
The appellant, M/s. SAIL (Bhilai Steel Plant), challenged the denial of Cenvat credit on several items. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed credit for chain assembly, unmachined castings, copper coated wire, and grate bar but denied credit for other items. The appellant claimed these items were used in manufacturing capital goods or intermediate goods within their workshops.
For items such as steel wire ropes, tubes, sheets, non-ST billets, blooms, steel forgings, MS rounds, and flats, the Commissioner found that these were not inputs under Rule 57A nor capital goods under Rule 57Q during the relevant period. The appellant failed to provide specific details of the machinery for which these items were used, rendering their claim ambiguous. The Tribunal noted that the appellant is entitled to seek Cenvat credit under the relevant provisions even if initially claimed under incorrect provisions. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to re-examine if the items qualify as capital goods eligible for Cenvat credit.
Denial of Credit on Extra Copy/Buyer's Copy of Invoices:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 14,20,379/- taken on extra copy/buyer's copy of invoices, citing that Rule 57G prescribed the 'duplicate copy of invoice' as the proper document for availing credit. The Tribunal noted that the relevant notification and CBEC Circular cited by the appellant were issued after the material period and thus were not applicable. The Tribunal referenced the Larger Bench decision in CCE v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which required adherence to prescribed rules for claiming credit. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the original authority for the appellant to establish its entitlement.
Imposition of Penalty:
The Commissioner reduced the penalty from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the issue involved interpretation of rules. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on the penalty but implied that the matter should be reconsidered in light of the remand.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the lower authorities to re-examine the entitlement to Cenvat credit on the disputed items and the denial of credit taken on extra copy/buyer's copy of invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to provide specific evidence regarding the use of the items in question. The appeal was thus allowed for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1124
Issues involved: Assessment of imported goods based on enhanced value, rejection of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) due to acceptance of enhanced value by importer, interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary:
Assessment of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported aluminum scrap and declared the transaction value as per the invoice for assessment at Customs House, Kandla. The Customs proposed to enhance the value, which the appellant accepted by paying the duty and clearing the consignments. Subsequently, the assessments were challenged through appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals solely on the ground that the appellants had accepted the enhanced value, citing Section 17(5) of the Act. However, the Appellate Tribunal noted that Section 17(5) requires the proper officer to pass a speaking order only when the assessment is not accepted by the importer or exporter. Acceptance of the assessment at the pre-assessment stage does not deprive the importer of the right to challenge the assessment before higher appellate authorities.
Request for Speaking Order:
The importers had written letters requesting the authorities to pass the bill of entry on enhanced value under protest and issue a speaking order. This indicated the urgency to clear the goods even at the enhanced value, with the intention to challenge the assessment post-clearance. Such requests were not covered by the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Act.
Decision and Remand:
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to pass appropriate, reasoned, and speaking orders for enhancing the assessable value. The appellants were granted the liberty to raise all legal issues before the original adjudicating authority. All the appeals were allowed by way of remand.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act and upholds the right of importers to challenge assessments even if they have accepted enhanced values for clearance of goods.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1123
CENVAT credit - transfer of capital goods to another unit under challan - the appellant were under impression that they could avail the Cenvat credit, that the unit at E-54, Road No. 5 was doing the job work for the main unit and, therefore, it was permissible for the appellant to avail the Cenvat credit u/r 4(5)(a) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that: - since the unit at E-54, Road No. 5, VKI Area, being is unregistered unit, not duty paying, the same would not have been able to take capital goods Cenvat credit in respect of the capital goods installed there and obviously for this reason only, the receipt of the capital goods has been shown in the unit at C-61, VKI Area and Cenvat credit has been availed while the capital goods were actually meant for as installed in the other unit - credit rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1122
Issues:
Refund claim based on reduced rate of duty, challenge to assessment not made by appellant, application of doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a refund claim due to charging excess duty on goods under Chapter Heading No. 4410 and 4411, cleared at 16% instead of the applicable 8% duty rate. The claim was rejected citing non-challenge to the assessment through appeal and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
2. The appellant argued that the decisions in Flock India Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries cases were not applicable as they paid excess duty voluntarily without communication from the Central Excise Officer regarding assessment. Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act was cited to support the maintainability of refund claims without a challenge to an order.
3. Regarding the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the appellant requested a remand to prove that they bore the duty incidence themselves. The appeal sought to set aside the impugned order based on these grounds.
4. The Departmental Representative contended that the denial of the refund claim was justified as per precedents and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was applicable. Reference was made to the decision in Maharashtra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT, Mumbai and the Grasim Industries case.
5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant paid the excess duty voluntarily without challenging any assessment. The communication of an order or decision from the Central Excise Officer was crucial for challenging assessments under Section 35(1) of the Act.
6. As there was no communication regarding the assessment, the Tribunal found the decisions in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. and Flock India Pvt. Ltd. cases inapplicable. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was deemed applicable, necessitating examination by the adjudicating authority.
7. The Tribunal referred the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to determine unjust enrichment after allowing the appellant to provide supporting documents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1120
The petitioner challenged an order of the Additional Excise Commissioner in Allahabad for cancelling a license without a hearing. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner was not involved in the matter and therefore not entitled to a hearing.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1118
The Supreme Court admitted Civil Appeal Nos. 3172-3175 of 2010 filed by Giavudan India P. Ltd. against the CESTAT Final Order. The Appellate Tribunal's order stated that odoriferous substances containing alcohol 0.5% or more were added to make compound alcoholic beverage preparations (CABPs) not eligible for benefits under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1117
Validity of rule 59(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 questioned - Held that:-Reading sections 3A and 78(1), 2(a) and (m) of the VAT Act and rule 59(1), Sl. No. 4(ii)(b) and (d), leads to the conclusion that the Government appointed various officers to perform various functions within their territorial jurisdiction or in the whole of Andhra Pradesh. The Government can also authorize the Commissioner as well as Additional/Joint Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners to entrust powers and functions to such officers, say, for instance, for the purpose of assessment to CTOs and DCTOs. Further, rule 59(1), Sl. No. 4(2)(b) and (d) does not in any manner exceed the delegated power. Therefore, if the Deputy Commissioner authorizes any of the officers to undertake assessment within the territorial jurisdiction or within the division, the same does not vitiate the assessment made by such officer. A VATdealer cannot complain that the assessment having not been made by the CTO, or the Assistant Commissioner having territorial jurisdiction, the assessment made by any of the officers author ized by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal. Such an argument would ignore the various provisions of the VAT Act and the VATRules.
Thus no hesitation in rejecting the plea that the definition of "assessing authority" in section 2(4) of the VAT Act plays a crucial role in so far as exercise of the powers by the authority prescribed for the purpose of sections 20 and 21 or for that matter any authority prescribed under the VAT Act. The Commissioner, as defined in section 2(8), derives all or any powers by reason of the delegation under the notification vide G.O. Ms. No. 1163, dated August 14, 2006, published in A.P. Gazette, Part I, Extraordinary 463A, dated August 14, 2006. Under this, the Government empowered the Commissioner to empower any officer working under his control to exercise any powers within such area or areas or the whole of State of Andhra Pradesh.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1116
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI ruled in favor of the assessees in the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order on Service Tax for 'Outdoor Catering Services'. The Tribunal held that Service Tax credit is not available to manufacturers if the workers bear the cost of food. The case was remanded for re-quantification of Service Tax demand based on the cost of food borne by workers. Penalty on the assessees was set aside.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1115
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Tribunal regarding the obligation to establish a nexus between imported inputs and final products for availing benefit of Exemption Notification.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Madras High Court Bench on 3-12-2010 involved the dismissal of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai against the CESTAT Final Order. The Commissioner sought to challenge the Tribunal's order, which held that the transferee of an advance license did not need to establish a nexus between imported inputs and final products for availing the benefit of an Exemption Notification. The Tribunal had determined that the DEEC license in question was transferable and that the transferees had received the license from the original exporters who had fulfilled the export obligation. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal concluded that duty-free import of inputs was permissible without the need to establish a nexus between imports and export products. This decision was supported by a Division Bench ruling of the Court, which emphasized that when goods were imported under a valid license without any export obligation, there was no requirement to prove a connection between the imported and exported goods.
The High Court, in its judgment, upheld the Tribunal's findings and reasoning. It noted that the Tribunal's conclusions were primarily based on the Division Bench decision of the Court and found no grounds to entertain the appeal. The Court emphasized that since there was no legal question, let alone a substantial one, requiring consideration, the appeal was dismissed without costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of the Division Bench decision in guiding the interpretation of the law regarding the obligation to establish a nexus between imported inputs and exported products for availing duty-free benefits. The Court's decision underscored the significance of legal precedent in shaping the application of customs and excise laws in cases involving the transfer of licenses and the fulfillment of export obligations.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1114
Essentiality certificate - demand of duty on the ground that the essentiality certificate granted to the assessee for the purpose of clearance of the goods without payment of duty in terms of N/N. 10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 had been subsequently cancelled - Held that: - although the essentiality certificate, as per the notification above mentioned, was granted initially, it was subsequently cancelled on 26-6-2002. The cancellation also specifically states that the Form-B for availing customs and excise duty exemption issued earlier also stands cancelled - thus, the demand has been rightly confirmed - however, the prayer of the assessee for extending the benefit of cum-duty price is allowed - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1113
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal has erred in law in taking into consideration irrelevant material and ignoring the relevant material on record?
Held that:- The Tribunal has merely recorded that certain specific instances have been mentioned in the assessment order for rejecting the genuineness of transactions and that the appellant has not countered such specific instances and has deemed it proper to remain silent on it for the reasons best known to him. That, findings of non-existence of the transport company are more eloquent.
Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal clearly suffer from non-application of mind. When the assessee has raised specific contentions before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is required to apply its mind to the said contentions and after appreciating the evidence on record, record its findings in respect thereof. In the present case, the Tribunal has abdicated its duties of appreciating the evidence on record and recording its findings and has merely brushed aside the submissions made by the assessee without even a reference thereto. The impugned order of the Tribunal therefore stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The question is answered in the affirmative
-
2010 (12) TMI 1112
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 5AA of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
- Liability of a dealer to pay sales tax under section 5AA
- Requirement of registration of trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for attracting section 5AA
- Comparison with relevant case laws like Ponds (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Bechu & Company v. Assistant Commissioner
Analysis:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dealt with a revision under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to determine the liability of a registered dealer to pay sales tax under section 5AA of the Act. The petitioner, involved in the sale of lubricating oil packed with the name "VICROCIL," argued that unless the trade mark is registered under section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, section 5AA of the APGST Act is not applicable. On the contrary, the respondent relied on the case of Bechu & Company v. Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that sales by the holder of a trade mark are deemed as the first sale liable to tax, regardless of registration status.
The court analyzed section 5AA of the APGST Act, which states that a dealer holding a trade mark selling goods other than declared goods at a point other than the first sale is deemed the first seller liable to pay tax, with provisions for tax deductions from preceding sales. The court clarified that the provision does not mandate trade mark registration to trigger section 5AA. Citing precedents like Ponds (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Bechu & Company, the court emphasized that the liability arises when a dealer sells goods identifiable with a name, becoming a trade mark holder, and any sale by such dealer is considered the first point of sale subject to tax.
Referring to the Kerala High Court case of Bechu & Company, the court highlighted that the Trade Marks Act does not inhibit unregistered trade mark holders from using trade marks or brand names for business. It noted that the right of a trade mark holder, whether registered or not, is protected under the Trade Marks Act, with section 27 providing prima facie proof of such rights. In this context, the court concluded that the petitioner's sale of lubricating oil under the name "VICROCIL" qualifies as a sale under a trade mark, dismissing the tax revision case based on these grounds, without imposing any costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1111
Issues: Delay in preferring the revision application, interception of trucks loaded with coal, tax exemption claim, misuse of Form C, failure to ensure proper documentation, penalty proceedings.
The judgment by the High Court of Uttarakhand involved considering an application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision application. The court, after being satisfied with the reasons furnished, allowed the application for condonation of delay. The case revolved around Trade Tax Revision No. 4 of 2010, where trucks loaded with coal were intercepted. Despite claims that the intercepted coal was meant for the revisioner and used as fuel in its industry with tax exemption, there was no document suggesting that the coal was tax-paid at the time of interception. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the revisioner for not ensuring proper documentation. It was found that the form C issued by the revisioner to its supplier was blank at the time of issuance, failing to mention crucial details like the order number, which led to misuse of the form. The court noted that the revisioner's failure to protect itself while issuing the form C resulted in the goods not being used solely for tax-exempt purposes. As a result, the court dismissed the revision application, stating that there was no scope for interference due to the revisioner's lack of proper documentation and failure to ensure tax compliance.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1110
Whether the detention order has been made in accordance with law?
Whether the authority, who passed the detention order, has got power and jurisdiction to do the same?
Held that:- A perusal of the statement recorded from a representative of the K.G.S. Scan would go to show that at the time of checking, the invoice regarding the sale made by the Siemens Limited to a company in Andhra Pradesh was very much produced. Therefore, when it was doubtless that the Siemens Limited was the original owner of the goods, who had sold away the goods to a company in Andhra Pradesh and thus, it was the consignor, there was no legal ground available for the respondents to pass the detention order. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the detention order is not only without jurisdiction and the same is void under law. Consequently, the order imposing compounding fees is also without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1109
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in relation to the supply of goods during repair work.
Summary:
1. The Respondent, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, placed an order with M/s Jyoti Limited for the repair of main field coils and rotor of an Alternator. The dispute arose regarding the excise duty charged on the repair work done by Jyoti Limited. The Tribunal held that the repair work amounted to the supply of goods, entitling the Respondent to the benefit of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. The Appellant contended that the goods repaired did not match any items specified in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, thus challenging the applicability of Rule 57Q. It was argued that the description of the goods in the purchase order and bill did not align with the items in the Tariff schedule.
3. The Respondent's counsel referred to item 85.03 of the Tariff schedule, which covers parts suitable for use with machines under specific headings. While acknowledging that excise duty on parts during repair could qualify for Rule 57Q, it was highlighted that the order and bill indicated repair and testing of parts, not just supply of parts. The Court directed the matter to be sent back to the Tribunal for further consideration on whether the repair and testing work could be classified as goods specified in the Tariff schedule. The Tribunal was instructed to address the issue promptly.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1108
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of non-genuine purchases.
2. Reduction of indirect cost while computing deduction u/s. 80HHC.
3. Allowability of deduction u/s. 80HHC in respect of DEPB income.
4. Rectification of the assessment order u/s. 154.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition on Account of Non-Genuine Purchases:
The first issue concerns an addition of Rs. 2,09,05,947/- made by the AO on account of non-genuine purchases. The AO noted discrepancies in the purchases from 10 parties, where notices issued were returned unserved, and the assessee failed to produce the parties or provide their current addresses. The AO treated purchases from seven parties as non-genuine. The assessee provided reconciliations and supporting evidence for some discrepancies, but the AO was not satisfied. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had provided complete quantitative details and that all purchases were reflected in the sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that there could not be any sales without purchases and that the purchases could not be considered bogus. The Tribunal cited the decision in Balaji Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and M.K. Bros. vs. CIT, supporting the view that purchases were genuine.
2. Reduction of Indirect Cost While Computing Deduction u/s. 80HHC:
The second issue pertains to the reduction of indirect cost by 10% of export incentives while computing the profit derived from exports. The AO disallowed this reduction, but the CIT(A) allowed it based on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Surendra Engg. Corporation vs. ACIT. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Hiro Exports, which upheld the attribution of 10% of export incentives towards indirect cost.
3. Allowability of Deduction u/s. 80HHC in Respect of DEPB Income:
The third issue involves the allowability of deduction u/s. 80HHC in respect of DEPB income. The AO denied the deduction, stating that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the third proviso to sec. 80HHC(3). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the judgment in CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals, which held that the entire DEPB income, including the face value, must be treated as income u/s. 28(iiid). The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for further examination in light of this judgment.
4. Rectification of the Assessment Order u/s. 154:
The fourth issue concerns the rectification of the assessment order u/s. 154. The AO made an addition for purchases from M/s. Dimple Metal Corporation, which was omitted in the original assessment. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the entire addition on account of purchases had already been deleted in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that no addition was required on account of bogus purchases.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues except the allowability of deduction u/s. 80HHC in respect of DEPB income, which was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further examination.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1107
Whether or not the products of cello company, i.e., serving tray, flask, stainless steel tiffin with plastic body, water jug and hotpot (casserole) would fall within the meaning of "utensils" under entry No. 13 of Part II of Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005?
Held that:- hermal flask/vacuum flask is known in common parlance as article used for storing beverages like coffee, tea, milk, etc., at a particular temperature which is frequently and commonly used in the household. The hotpot (casserole) is also used for keeping the vegetables, chapatis, rice and other food-stuff hot to be delectable. Serving tray is used regularly for serving dishes and other food-stuff. Water jug and stainless steel tiffin with plastic body, are also frequently used in kitchen and for domestic purposes.
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no dispute that the above stated articles are utensils and are used regularly for domestic purposes. Thus the articles in question are taxable only at the rate of four per cent. Accordingly, the authorities are directed to reassess and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1106
Whether there was any intention to evade payment of tax to the Government taking shelter under a wrong classification?
Held that:- In the present case but for the inspection and gathering intelligence report, actual suppression of details of this credit card sales would not have come to light but for the lifting of the veil and actual taxable turnover would not have come to light. Therefore, it is a case of incorrect returns by giving wrong description of the sales and claiming exemption disclosing wrong information. Therefore, it is a case of definitely incorrect returns as there is suppression of details of the actual credit card sales, which came to light only after verification of the account books. Hence, none of the decisions relied upon by the respondent/assessee would come to its rescue. Hence the contention of the assessee that once the quantum of total turnover shown in the returns filed tallied with the books of accounts, question of suppression of details would not come into picture is not applicable to the facts on hand. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed by answering the questions of law raised above in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Accordingly the revision petition is allowed by answering the question of law in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1105
Whether old newspaper when sold as such, would be covered by the exemption provided in the Constitution under entry 92A of List I read with entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and sale thereof would not be liable to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act?
In case of a conflict arising from decision of the co-equal Benches of the Supreme Court, whether the High Court can follow the earlier decision which has taken a particular view as opposed to a later decision on the same point which has taken a contrary view?
Held that:- The object and purpose of the said Act is totally different from the object and purpose of levying sales tax on old newspaper. In fact, it is a settled principle of taxation law that while interpreting the provision of a taxation statute in the context of the tax being leviable on a particular transaction and interpretation thereof, reliance cannot be placed on the meaning given to certain words or phrases in other enactments. Under the circumstances, I am constrained not to follow the later decision of the Supreme Court in Sait Rikhaji's case [1990 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and are inclined to follow the earlier decisions in The Indian Express (P.) Ltd. case [1986 (4) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], and in the case of The Hindu [1987 (11) TMI 334 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Hence, the questions raised in these cases are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
