|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 558 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 479
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with a stay application in a Central Excise Appeal where the petitioner was asked to deposit a specific amount as a precondition for adjudication, based on allegations of fraud in preparing documents and defaulting the government exchequer.
Summary by issue:
1. Opportunity of hearing and supply of documents:
The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority did not provide adequate opportunity for hearing and did not supply the necessary documents. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner argued that demanding pre-deposit without following principles of natural justice is unsustainable. The petitioner relied on a case where the High Court intervened due to non-relied documents being provided after orders were passed.
2. Findings and modus operandi of the petitioner:
The judgment detailed findings by the Customs, Central Excise Service Tax Commissioner regarding the petitioner's actions. These findings included instances of avoiding personal hearings, discrepancies in stock verification, transportation of goods on inappropriate vehicles, and discrepancies in bank transactions. The Commissioner concluded that there was a deliberate attempt to defraud the government exchequer.
3. Adjudication and pre-deposit requirement:
The High Court found that the appellant was given ample opportunity to present a defense, but failed to do so effectively. The adjudicating authority had substantial evidence to support the allegations of fraud by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the CESTAT to require the petitioner to deposit a significant amount as a pre-condition for further proceedings, as the petitioner lacked a strong prima facie case and did not demonstrate any hardship in depositing the amount.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the requirement for the petitioner to deposit the specified amount. Additionally, the petitioner was granted an extension to fulfill this deposit within a specified timeframe.
-
2012 (2) TMI 478
Seeking stay of the outstanding demand of tax - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the stay is to be granted in this case on the condition that the assessee shall pay a further sum of ₹ 35.00 lakhs on or before 15-03-2012. The stay shall be in force for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The appeal is posted for hearing on 04-05-2012. As the date of hearing of the appeal is declared in the open court, no fresh notice need be given.
In the result, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 477
The Kerala High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to levy redemption fine and personal penalty on an imported vehicle that violated regulations. The Court found the Tribunal's reduction of the fine and penalty to be fair and dismissed the appeal, stating that no further reduction was warranted.
-
2012 (2) TMI 476
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147.
2. Disallowance of interest-free loan u/s 36(1)(iii).
3. Disallowance of interest on share application money u/s 36(1)(iii).
4. Disallowance of interest u/s 14A.
Summary:
Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment u/s 147
The assessee contended that the reopening of assessment was primarily to disallow under section 14A and that section 36(1)(iii) was used to avoid the provisions of section 14A, which are not applicable for reopening assessments prior to 1.4.2001. The CIT (A) upheld the reopening, noting that the Assessing Officer had a prima facie belief based on findings from AY 2001-02 that funds were diverted for non-business purposes, leading to excess interest claims. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since no scrutiny assessment was done under section 143(3) earlier, reopening under section 147 is valid. The ground was dismissed.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest-Free Loan u/s 36(1)(iii)
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 72,000/- being interest-free loan given to Shri Rishi Kumar Chakrapani, stating it was not for business purposes. The CIT (A) upheld this disallowance, and the Tribunal confirmed it, noting that there was no evidence to counter the findings of non-business consideration. The ground was rejected.
Issue 3: Disallowance of Interest on Share Application Money u/s 36(1)(iii)
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 43,70,388/- as interest on share application money, stating it was not a business activity. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal upheld this disallowance, noting that the advances were not for business purposes and were recovered without any allotment of shares or receipt of interest. The ground was rejected.
Issue 4: Disallowance of Interest u/s 14A
For AY 2001-02, the CIT (A) enhanced the disallowance under section 14A to Rs. 153.01 lakhs, against Rs. 16,25,921/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, noting that the nexus between borrowed funds and their utilization for business or non-business purposes needs to be established. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider whether the disallowed amounts could be set off against capital gains income.
For AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of interest, considering whether the investments were for business purposes and whether the borrowed funds were utilized for business activities. The disallowance of interest on advances to Shri Rishi Kumar Chakrapani and MPCC was confirmed as they were for non-business purposes.
Conclusion:
The appeal in ITA No. 933/Mum/2006 was dismissed, while other appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues concerning disallowance of interest under sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) based on the nexus between borrowed funds and their utilization.
-
2012 (2) TMI 475
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and admitted the appeal, tagging it with Civil Appeal No. 3234 of 2011. (2012 (2) TMI 475 - SC)
-
2012 (2) TMI 474
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for entertaining a writ petition when an appeal lies against the decision of the Tribunal.
Summary:
The High Court of Bombay dismissed a petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order of the CESTAT. The CESTAT had referred certain points of difference to a Third Member, but the petition was filed on an aspect already concluded by the decision. The impugned order held that duty is chargeable under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on clandestine removals of goods, which is appealable to the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have followed a Supreme Court judgment, but the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, stating that when an appeal is available in law, parties should be relegated to that remedy. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial propriety, especially when the appeal lies before the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
2012 (2) TMI 473
Clandestine removal - it was alleged that appellant were indulged and clearing part of their finished products by issuing private challans and without issuing proper invoices - entire allegation of Revenue is based uopn statements of various persons, pen drive, production reports of lab assistants and Challans and party-wise statements.
Held that: - the directors have accepted their role and that there was a clandestine clearances, the said statement should be considered from the point of the factual matrix of whether the said clandestine removal could be proved from the evidences on record or not.
Retracted statement cannot be relied upon for establishing charge of clandestine manufacture and clearances against the assessee - Hence the statements of buyers and suppliers need to be discarded as evidences.
Evidences relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority on the production reports of the lab assistants, challans and party-wise statements - Held that: - the said challans and production reports of the lab assistants could have no effect on the face of fact that the appellants manufacturing capacity was far less as recorded - when there is no evidence of clandestine manufacture, acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods from the appellants by the buyers, we find that evidences on record do not support the case of Revenue.
The impugned order is not able to establish that there was a clandestine manufacture and clearance of the finished goods from the factory premises of M/s. FPML - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2012 (2) TMI 472
Issues involved: Remand of matter by Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication, issuance of show cause notice u/s Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2004, legality of remand by Commissioner (Appeals), power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand.
Remand of matter by Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for re-adjudication, observing the principles of natural justice, without confirming the demand of duty against the appellant, rendering the stay petition infructuous. The appellant had already deposited a partial amount of the total demand. Both the sides appealed against this decision.
Issuance of show cause notice u/s Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2004: The Superintendent directed the appellants to deposit a specific amount of duty, citing a case of default in correct payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that a show cause notice must be issued in such cases, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in a similar matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for proper adjudication after issuance of a show cause notice.
Legality of remand by Commissioner (Appeals) and power to remand: The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not clarify the direction to issue a fresh show cause notice, potentially converting illegal proceedings into legal ones. The Revenue appealed on the grounds that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand and should have decided the matter directly. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to re-adjudicate the matter after proper observance of the process of law, upholding the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the stay petition and both appeals, directing the lower authority to issue a proper show cause notice before adjudicating the remanded proceedings, ensuring the appellant's right to defend themselves. The legality of the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, emphasizing the need for due process in the adjudication of tax matters.
-
2012 (2) TMI 471
Issues involved:
Violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.
Summary:
The Adjudication Order was passed against M/s. Rupani Exports for not realizing the full export proceeds amounting to £11,400 for the shipment of leather gents jackets to M/s. Worthgear Ltd., London, U.K. The enforcement officers conducted searches and seized relevant documents. M/s. Rupani Exports and its partners were charged under Section 18(2) & 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. Despite being given an opportunity to respond, no reply was filed by M/s. Rupani Exports. The Adjudicating Authority found that the company had not made efforts to realize the outstanding amount and imposed penalties. The appellants raised objections, including lack of basis for proceedings and coercion in obtaining statements. The respondent defended the order citing compliance with FER Act provisions.
The Adjudicating Authority provided an opportunity for the appellants to explain the non-realization of the outstanding amount. The Authority accepted the submission of receipt of £2,400 and gave a fair chance to present evidence. The provisions of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 were analyzed, emphasizing the obligation to repatriate export proceeds and the presumption of non-compliance if payments are delayed. The appellants failed to provide evidence of waivers or extensions, leading to the conclusion that they had not realized the outstanding amount. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, directing the appellants to deposit the penalty amount within seven days.
In conclusion, the judgment upheld the penalties imposed on M/s. Rupani Exports and its partners for non-realization of export proceeds, emphasizing the importance of compliance with FER Act provisions and the obligation to make reasonable efforts to repatriate export proceeds within the prescribed period.
-
2012 (2) TMI 470
Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal, service of order on authorized agent
Delay in filing appeal: The appellant sought to condone a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal, explaining that their factory was closed when the impugned order was dispatched. The order was returned with a remark stating "nobody is available in the factory." The appellant only became aware of the order after being informed by Revenue to deposit the dues, and subsequently obtained a copy of the order from their Consultant, filing the appeal on 23-3-2011. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional.
Service of order on authorized agent: The Revenue contended that the order served on the Consultant should be considered as appropriately served, citing Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the Consultant was only authorized to advance arguments and defend the appellant, not to receive the order. The Tribunal held that the provision does not cover the situation where the order is received by the Consultant without separate authorization.
Decision: The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the order was received back by the appellant and no further service was shown. Considering the subsequent collection of the order by the appellant from the Consultant, the Tribunal allowed the COD application and listed the stay petition for hearing on 10-4-2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 469
Clandestine removal - Shortage of stok - case of assessee is that the Revenue completely ignored melting loss of 4% of copper wire scrap and loss of 1% on copper wire scrap covered with insulated material - there was a difference of opinion and the matter went before Larger Bench where it was held that it is apparent that except for the shortage in raw material viz., HD which was disputed by the assessee and the statement of the Director, there was no other evidence on record to indicate clandestine manufacture and removal of final products. On behalf of the revenue, except for placing reliance upon the statement of the Director recorded during the course of the search proceedings, no evidence has been pointed out which corroborates the fact of clandestine manufacture and removal of final products. In the circumstances, on the basis of the material available on record, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error in giving benefit of doubt to the assessee - there being no concrete evidence (as agreed by both the Members) of clandestine removal of the goods, the appeals are required to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 468
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on dividend/interest paid to the chit subscribers - Held that:- The dividend distributed by the assessee herein does not partake the character of ‘interest’, and consequently, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source. The provisions of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act are not attracted, and accordingly the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer by resorting to disallowance in terms of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act.
Short Term Capital Gains on slump sale - Held that:- The assessee did not produce any depreeciati0on schedule to substantiate the claim of the assessee, and in the absence of any evidence to show that depreciation has been wrongly calculated or the exact depreciation schedule, rejected the contention of the assessee and upholding the action of the assessing officer. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the assessing officer has not taken into account the revised computation filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, and the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the assessing officer in the absence of depreciation schedule or any evidence produced before him to substantiate the claim of the assessee, we find it just and proper to set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue, and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to examine the same afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to adduce the necessary evidence to substantiate its claim with regard to the depreciation.
-
2012 (2) TMI 467
Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - estimation of income by applying flat rate of gross profit - Held that:- Certain defects were found in the account books of the assessee and therefore the same was rejected and flat rate of gross profit was applied by the Department. We find that it is well settled that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed merely on the ground that there were defects in the account books of the assessee and the account books were rejected and the flat rate of the gross profit is applied to arrive at the gross profits of the assessee. Merely because in the case of the assessee a survey action was undertaken, it does not follow that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposable on the estimated trading profit of the assessee. Accordingly, we find no justification for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue, which is cancelled.
Issue of transaction with "SC" - assessee retained 3 per cent. on account of sales tax - Held that:- We find that the facts of the case may justify the confirmation of the addition made on this count by the Revenue authorities, but are not sufficient for sustaining the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that no evidence or material was brought on record by the Department to suggest that the assessee has retained 3 per cent. or part thereof on account of sales tax with it. The assessee has filed an explanation, which could not be termed as not bona fide. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to prove the charge that any part of 3 per cent. being sales tax on the transaction remained with assessee, we are unable to sustain the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee, which is cancelled.
Unexplained cash credits under section 68 - Held that:- We find that there was sufficient reason for the assessee for its filing the necessary evidences before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the facts of the case, we consider that it shall be in the interest of justice to set aside the issue of addition of ₹ 8,09,100 under section 68 to the file of the AO with direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct accordingly.
Excessive or unreasonable payments of job work charges under section 40A(2)(b) -Held that:- We find that the assessee could not lead any evidence to show that the payment for job work were not excessive or unreasonable. The assessee has not given any comparable figures of job work rate prevailing in the market with regard to other parties in similar line of the trade for the relevant period. The assessee has given job work only to M/s. Krishna Organics and M/s. Jyoti Industries and both these firms are admittedly the sister-concerns of the assessee. The comparison of job work rate with the earlier year is not relevant. What is more relevant is the prevailing market rate of similar service rendered by the parties to the unrelated business firm. In the facts of the case, we hold that the pre-dominance of probabilities is against the assessee and accordingly the disallowance made by the AO under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is confirmed
-
2012 (2) TMI 466
Issues Involved:
1. Whether entertainment tax is payable on the amount paid by a person for carrying his mobile phone inside the Delhi Race Club u/s 6(1) of the Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1996.
2. Whether the settlement between the petitioner and the entertainment tax authorities precludes the levy of entertainment tax.
Summary:
Issue 1: Entertainment Tax on Mobile Phone Entry Fee
The primary issue in the writ petition was whether entertainment tax is payable on the amount paid for carrying a mobile phone inside the Delhi Race Club u/s 6(1) of the Delhi Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1996. The petitioner, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., levied a separate charge for carrying mobile phones inside the premises as a regulatory measure. The entertainment tax authorities issued a notice demanding entertainment tax at 25% on these charges. The petitioner contended that mobile phones did not fall under the category of entertainment and thus, the levy was unauthorized by the Act. However, the court held that u/s 2(m)(iv) of the Act, any payment connected with entertainment, which a person is required to make as a condition of attending the entertainment, attracts entertainment tax. The court concluded that the payment for carrying mobile phones was connected with the entertainment (horse races) and was a condition for attending the races, thereby satisfying the conditions of sub-clause (iv). Hence, the levy was deemed legal and valid.
Issue 2: Settlement with Tax Authorities
The petitioner argued that a settlement had been reached with the entertainment tax authorities, which should preclude the levy. The court dismissed this contention, stating that there can be no settlement in matters arising under a fiscal statute in the absence of a specific provision in the statute. Additionally, it was noted that there can be no estoppel against the statute, as highlighted in the Supreme Court case Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab [1962] 13 STC 180 (SC); AIR 1962 SC 745.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, upholding the levy of entertainment tax on the charges for carrying mobile phones inside the Delhi Race Club. The court emphasized that the payment for mobile phone entry was connected with the entertainment and was a condition for attending the horse races, thus falling within the scope of u/s 2(m)(iv) read with section 6(1) of the Act.
-
2012 (2) TMI 465
Itch Guard Cream and Dermicool powder - classification - Held that:- The learned counsel for the State has conceded that the item Itch Guard Cream is used only for treatment of certain medical conditions and cannot be used otherwise merely for cosmetic purposes and therefore this item would fall within the entry 11 of Part IV of Schedule II.
Dermicool powder which is described as a prickly heat powder is also commonly understood to be of use in treating prickly problem and not as an ordinary talcum powder. We are of the opinion that the item Dermicool powder must be held to be a medicine taxable under entry 11, and not a medicinal preparation of a cosmetic within the meaning of those words as used in entry 41 or 49 quoted above.
-
2012 (2) TMI 464
Additional duty on non production of proof - exemption denied - Held that:- The conditions imposed for claiming exemption in no way contemplate a dealer providing proof of payment of additional duties of exemption by the manufacturer. A proof of this nature is obviously not contemplated in the Scheme of this Act. The exemption granted in respect of the items figuring in entry 3 are not qualified by a condition that it should be purchased from a manufacturer.
Thus the argument on behalf of the Revenue to the effect that the dealer having never made good that his purchase turnover was one corresponding to the very description of the goods as in the Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise Act in the absence of production of proof of payment of additional duty of excise and is not entitled for exemption and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is justified and to be sustained on such logic is not a tenable argument.
The Additional Commissioner did not issue show-cause notice proposing for revision either on the ground that the dealer had not made good the precise goods which he had purchased were covered under the Schedule to the Excise Act or on the premise that they have not been sold as such, but utilised in manufacturing. Show-cause notice was only one confining to non-production of the proof of payment of additional duties and the order for denying exemption is also on the same reason and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 463
Revision of assessment order - petitioner was treated as liable under section 6A of the 1957 Act by the revisional authority - Held that:- The petitioner was treated as liable under section 6A but without any mention or discussion of his liability under section 6A of the 1957 Act, in the show-cause notice dated September 20, 1994. As established in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Loharu Steel Industries Limited [1994 (11) TMI 408 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] that a revisional authority cannot engraft a liability without notice to the assessee/dealer.
Thus order of the revisional authority determining the liability of the revision petitioner under section 6A of the 1957 Act must therefore be held to be unsustainable for transgression of the audi alteram partem principle, particularly in view of non providing an opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement.
Reasoning of the Tribunal to impose liability under section 6A of the 1957 Act is fallacious as burden is upon assessee to show that they purchased a part of the turnover for milling and the rest for sale. Therefore, if the order of exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 621, dated June 28, 1989 were be restrictively interpreted as confined to the turnover relating to milling by the Federation, then the burden is upon the Federation as an assessee (that the Federation is also a dealer under the provisions of the 1957 Act is not in dispute) to establish that they were in fact in the business of trading as well and had purchased part of the turnover for sale. Tax revision allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 462
Joint Commissioner order exercising appeal jurisdiction - whether erroneous for the reason that the dealer/assessee who had claimed as an export sale insofar as manufacture of mould is concerned, for which the dealer had received payment in advance called as "tool development charges" amounts to a sale transaction attracting section 4 of the Act for the reason that the goods, i.e., the moulds were never actually exported, but remained with the dealer?
Permanent wire tightener manufactured - whether classifiable within the scope of entry No. 67 of the Third Schedule to the Act as aluminium extrusions or as residuary entry taxable at the general rate of tax in terms of section 4(1) (b) of the Act?
Held that:- In the instant case, though it is contended the goods never left the premises of the assessee and therefore, no sale in the eye of law, we find it difficult to accept this submission for the reason that the assessee has received payment and the moment the goods have come into existence, the payment is with reference to the goods so finished and the transaction gets completed and therefore, the assessee holds the goods on behalf of the buyer. View taken by the Additional Commissioner on this aspect in restoring the assessment order by setting aside the order is perfectly justified as, the moment the assessee had received the payment and payment is appropriated with reference to the identified goods the sale has taken place
The words or phrase "aluminium extrusion" is one of many forms. Aluminium metal amongst many items described under this entry and what one can notice here is that several items in this entry are one fitting into a basic presentation of aluminium metal as a commodity either in moulds or in billets or in aluminium extrusion, etc. In fact, the assessee also has described that and sells it as permanent wire tightener and not as aluminium extrusion or any form of aluminium. May be the mould used is aluminium, but that in no way detracts from the end-product which is distinctly identified as a product and not merely as a form of aluminium in which the aluminium metal can be sold. It is for this reason we reject the argument that it should have been brought within the scope' of entry 67 of the Third Schedule to the Act. Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 461
Methodology of payment of subsidy - Cash payment towards subsidy claimed - Held that:- When the appellants themselves have realised their liability for making payment of such subsidy and have indeed issued the orders releasing total arrears of subsidy at ₹ 116.79 crores, a part of this amount ought to be paid to the petitioner-company so as to balance the equities even when the other part could be left for adjustment in the future tax liability. In our opinion, it shall meet the ends of justice if we make a direction for payment of about 50 per cent of the said undisputed amount of ₹ 116.79 crores, i.e., ₹ 58.00 crores, while leaving the remaining ₹ 58.79 crores to be adjusted in the future tax liabilities in the ensuing quarters, of course, together with the future component of subsidy as would accrue from time to time.
-
2012 (2) TMI 460
Circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh bearing Ref. No. AIII(1)/98/ 2010, dated May 22, 2010 challenged on the ground that it is contrary to proceedings dated November 21, 2007, October 21, 2008 and November 13, 2009, issued by the first respondent - Held that:- The clarifications in the impugned circular issued by the Commissioner constitute guidelines issued in exercise of powers under rule 16(2)(c) of the APVAT Rules, 2005. As rightly pleaded in the Commissioner's counter and clarified in the impugned circular, rice millers are not entitled to any exemption from liability to tax under the provisions of the APVAT Act, 2005 in respect of any part of turnovers of sales made otherwise than to FCI/State Agencies and no exemption on any part of the turnover of sales made in the open markets, otherwise than towards levy is comprehended in the policy of the Union of India exemplified by the letters dated November 21, 2007, October 21, 2008 and November 13, 2009.
The impugned circular of the Commissioner merely clarifies a position inherent and integral to the policy of the Union as set out in the three letters of the 1st respondent. Thus no illegality in the circular dated May 22, 2010 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, nor in proceedings initiated by the concerned assessment authorities for levy of tax from the petitioners, warranting interference under article 226 of the Constitution. W.P. dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
