|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1288 Records
-
2014 (9) TMI 913
Classification of goods - Rate of tax - Scented Supari or Meethi Supari - Joint Commissioner, based upon the report of the Mobile Squad, a finding of fact has been recorded that on the pouches the contents were mentioned as "Pooja Sugnadhit Supari" and ingredients was mentioned as "Betel Nut, Cardamom, Clove, contains added flavor". The Tribunal held that if it was Meethi Supari then it ought to have an element of Sugar or some sweetener and the same would have been mentioned on the pouch as a sweet ingredient but in the absence of any such mention of any sugar or sweetener and the fact that the on the pouch itself it was described as Pooja Scented Supari, the consignment was held to be Scented Supari which being an unclassified item was liable to tax at 14%. This being a finding of fact based upon the nature of the ingredients and its contents mentioned on the consignment itself, I do not find any error in the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal.
Value of consignment - Held that:- it was the stand of the revisionist that the goods were valued at ₹ 1,17,000/- and even in the memo of appeal he has taken a plea in ground no.5 that the value of the consignment was 1,17,000/-. The Joint Commissioner, Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have all noted this fact and yet come to the conclusion that the value of the consignment was ₹ 2,70,000 and on this value a demand of security of ₹ 1,08,000/- has been made. It has not been discussed any where either by the Assistant Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner or by the Tribunal as to how it has come to this conclusion so far as the value of the goods is concerned, whether the invoice were examined and disbelieved or whether that was not examined at all by the authorities below - findings of the Tribunal as well as the Joint Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner cannot survive and deserve to be quashed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 912
Seizure of goods - penalty proceeding was initiated against the respondent-assesee under Section 54(1)(14) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Held that:- Undisputedly, the respondent-assessee is engaged in processing of frozen meat.The goods in question were imported by the assessee as capital goods for installing it in its unit for the purpose of doing job work/processing of meat. These goods were not for sale by the assessee. These goods were purchased against Form-C and the payment was made on 11.9.2008 and 25.3.2009, i.e. before import of goods. When the goods were intercepted, the assessee replied that Form-38 was sent in advance to the selling dealer, but inadvertently, it was not handed over by them to the driver of the truck. The said Form-38 was obtained by the assessee from the selling dealer and was submitted before the assessing authority prior to the seizure of goods. The assessing authority has also not recorded any finding that the goods in question were for sale. The first appellate authority and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the goods in question were capital goods which were purchased by the assesee against Form-C and the same were not for sale, but for installing it in its unit. A finding of fact based on consideration of relevant materials available on record has been recorded by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The findings so recorded are findings of fact. In the absence of any cogent reason or basis for intention to evade payment of tax, penalty under Section 54 (1) (14) of the Act, was not leviable and as such the first appellate authority has lawfully set aside the penalty. The Tribunal has committed no error of law or facts to uphold the order of the first appellate authority. - no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 911
Demand of interest under Section 31 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Held that:- If two taxes are credited into the same fund it creates a gross credit in the fund. Similarly, short payment of Central Sales Tax in circumstances above into a fund against a corresponding increased payment of State Sales Tax into it does not reduce the gross credit. Therefore, if a dealer wants adjustment or set off, it is to be readily granted without insisting on any formalities. There is no question of charging any interest, penalty etc. provided the deposits were made concurrently. Interest is a kind of damages which a person claims for loss of money, according to Bhai Jaspal Singh and Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others reported in [2010 (10) TMI 899 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Indodan Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in [2009 (10) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] cited by Mr. Sengupta for the petitioner. Here there is no loss to the government. - gross tax paid by the assessee was not even a paisa short and that it was paid into one account or one fund. Therefore, there could not be any monetary loss to the government for which it could legitimately claim interest. - this kind of an adjustment can be made only when taxes paid in excess or short paid are credited into a known account or fund and can be easily adjusted. This ratio would not apply in case of interdepartmental adjustment or completely different types of taxes. - order of the Special Commissioner is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 910
Availment of benefit of compounding - Reopening of proceedings holding that 1% cess payable was not included for the purpose of reckoning the amount actually payable as compounded tax - held that:- similarly situated persons, being aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority to avail the benefit of interim stay, had approached this Court. The law stands declared by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Gopalakrishanan [2002 (12) TMI 582 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and Bhima Jewellery V. Assistant Commissioner [2002 (7) TMI 778 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. This Court had directed the appellate authority to consider and pass final orders on the appeal granting absolute stay till such time. Ext. P18 is the judgment passed by this Court under one such circumstance and pursuant to this, the matter was considered by the appellate authority, who accepted the version of the assessee and accordingly, Ext.P19 order was passed setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 909
Transfer of Officer - Without actual physical movement of goods, the petitioners while working as Check Post Officers in Kottakuppam Check Post in Vellore (Enforcement) wing had accepted the transit passes surrendered by the dealer without actual physical movement of oil to Pondicherry State - Held that:- Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that as of today, the petitioners are not working in the original post and they have been relieved as early as on 11.04.2014. He would also submit that already a charge memo has been issued to the petitioners for which till date, they have not received any reply. He would further submit that the authorities would initiate necessary steps, within a time frame, provided if the petitioners after submitting their explanation, co-operate with the enquiry proceedings. - In view of the said latest development, without going into the merits of the matter and taking into account the fact that it is only a question of transfer and also considering the fact that the newly appointed officers have already taken charge in the Vellore check post and the petitioners were relieved on 11.04.2014 itself, the petitioners are directed to abide by the transfer order. - Decided against Appellant.
-
2014 (9) TMI 908
Validity of revised orders of assessment - Opportunity of hearing not provided - Held that:- notice of hearing dated 09.04.2014, was sent fixing the date for personal hearing as 17.04.2014. Admittedly, a representative of the petitioner attended the personal hearing on 17.04.2014 and sought time till 23.04.2014. The first respondent could have either accepted or rejected the request. Instead, the first respondent passed orders on 09.05.2014. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be taken to have been passed after affording adequate opportunity as contemplated by the Division Bench in SRC Projects Private Limited, Salem Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in [2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 907
Cancellation of the permission already granted to satisfy the tax at the compounded rates - Held that:- Court finds that the matter was finalised by the concerned authority, pursuant to Ext.P7, by passing Ext.P10 order dated '1.9.2011'. If at all there was grievance with regard to the correctness of Ext.P10, it was for the petitioner to pursue the same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. This Court, after three years, does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P10, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction. Interference is declined - Decided against Petitioner.
-
2014 (9) TMI 906
Waiver of pre deposit - pre deposit ordered for extending benefit of interim stay - Held that:- if the version as putforth by the petitioner in the writ petition and as contained in the certificate mentioned herein before comes to be true and also subject to production of the documents, there may not be any liability upon the petitioner . However, this Court does not intend to express anything with regard to the merits of the case, in view of the fact that the appeals are pending consideration before the appellate authority. This Court finds that this is a fit case where the merits of the appeals have to be considered and decided by the appellate authority, with liberty to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 905
Discrepancy in the PIN Number of the supplier - Bonafide mistke or not - Held that:- It appears that the authority has clarified regarding the mismatch of TIN Number. However, this clarification dated 03.06.2014 has been issued much after the impugned order of assessment. Since the assessment appears to have been passed on those mismatched entries, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing to place before the first respondent the clarification dated 03.06.2014 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dindigul. - Accordingly, without setting aside the impugned proceedings, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 904
Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit order - Held that:- It is apparent that the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal came to be dismissed for non-payment of the predeposit amount of tax as well as interest. Subsequently, the petitioner has deposited the entire pre-deposit amount as directed by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the interests of justice would best be served, if the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal is restored. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 903
Validity of intimation sent by the Authority, who conducted a surprise inspection of the business premises - Held that:- What is challenged in this writ petition is only an intimation recording the alleged defects that the Inspecting Officer noted from the records of the petitioner in the course of his surprise inspection. Nothing turns out of this inspection report unless and until any proceeding is initiated under the Act. In other words, the impugned communication does not provide a cause of action for the petitioner to come up before this Court, though it may provide a cause of action for the Assessing Authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 902
Revision petition - affidavit of service giving facts as stated in Rule 5(1) of High Court Rules not served - Held that:- Affidavit of service has to accompany revision application, but proviso to sub Rule 2 provides, that, if due to lack of time or for any other sufficient reason, affidavit of service is not accompanying the application filed by Commissioner of Trade Tax, such affidavit must be filed within three weeks' of the date of institution of application. Therefore, a revision would be treated to be validly filed by an assessee if it is accompanied by affidavit of service, but in case of revision filed by Commissioner of Trade Tax, affidavit of service must accompany revision, but for valid reasons, this condition would stand dispensed with, but, the affidavit of service then, must be filed within three weeks' of the date of institution of application. - In case no such affidavit is filed and assessee is not served by Commissioner of Trade Tax, meaning thereby there is no notice or opportunity to the assessee and revision has not been filed in the manner prescribed in the Rules. - This revision was filed in 2010 and till date affidavit of service has not been filed. In my view, it is fit case where this Court must reject revision having not been filed in accordance with rules and for non-compliance of requirement of Chapter 27 Rule 5(2) of High Court Rules. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 901
Penalty under Section 15A (1) (o) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Proceedings were taken under Section 28A read with section 13A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Held that:- Product in question is subjected to duty under the Additional Duties of Excise Act as contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Unlike the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act, there is no provision which exempts the product of the revisionist on the basis of that it is subjected to tax under the Additional Duties of Excise Act. We were also shown the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. We do not find therein anything which would in any way foreclose the State to impose sales tax/VAT on those commodities which are subjected to duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. As far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, in the predecessor State, i.e. the State of U.P., law relating to sales tax is contained in the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
As far as the impact of the levy under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 on the levy under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is concerned, as we have already noted, there is no obstruction which is brought to our notice in the State levying tax on a commodity which has already been visited with levy under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. Therefore, even if the product is covered under sub-heading 2404.49 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, it will not in any way deprive the State of power to levy tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. - no merit in the revision - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 900
Refund claim - at the time of assessment tax deductions at source and also tax deposited could not be verified, the assessing officer observed that on verification of the tax deposited by RSRDC and tax deducted at source for which RSRDC was entitled to a set off - RSRDC deposited the tax amount found due by the assessing officer under its order - Subsequently in terms of the liberty recorded in the order of assessment dated 31.03.1997, verification of the tax deposited and tax deducted at source revealed that RSRDC was entitled to a refund with interest thereon from the date of deposit / tax deduction at source till the date of refund - held that:- Tax Board has rightly held, that the Additional Commissioner did not adhere to the mandate of Section 87 of the Act of 1994 and proceeded to exercise his powers cursorily, without calling for the record of the assessing officer who had passed the order dated 31.03.1997. It is evident that the Additional Commissioner thus had no material before him to satisfy himself as to how and in what manner the order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the assessing officer of which revision was sought after four years was erroneous and / or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. No specifics which vitiated the order dated 31.03.1997 were recorded by the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 21.05.2001. Further adequate opportunity was not given to RSRDC to reply to the show cause notice whereby it was proposed to reopen the assessment order dated 31.03.1997 and circumvent the refund found payable to RSRDC on verification of the tax deposited and tax deducted at source. Non address of RSRDC's application for a short adjournment to collect material for replying to the show cause notice issued after a delay of over three years was indicative of unseemly hurry and palpably arbitrary.
No specific ground was found by the Additional Commissioner to exercise his revisional powers to undo an order of assessment passed over three years ago on 31.03.1997. It is also apparent in the contextual facts of the case that the Additional Commissioner acted with haste in passing the order dated 21.05.2001 in setting aside the order of assessment dated 31.03.1997 and seeking a reassessment on hypothetical and generalized non-specific grounds. - there is nothing illegal or perverse in the impugned order dated 20.05.2003 under challenge in this revision petition. The said order passed by the learned Board is liable to be upheld. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 899
Imposition of punishment of reduction from the post of Record Clerk to the post of Office Assistant - Petitioner allowed the vehicles carrying bone meals to pass through the Checkpost without making entries in the Movement Register to Kerala State during the period from June 1999 to January 2000 and thus paved the dealers to evade tax - Held that:- Following the decision of Nyadar Singh versus Union of India and others [1988 (8) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT], this Court is the view that the impugned order of the respondent imposing the penalty of reduction on the petitioner who has been recruited to the post of Record Clerk, to the post of Office Assistant, lower than the post which she was recruited, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 898
Rejection of input tax claim - failure to submit VAT C-4/original tax invoices as required under Section 8 - Non service of notice - Tribunal nullified assessment - Held that:- Notice was not validly served upon the assessee in terms of Rule 79 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003. The Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the identity of the person to whom the notice was served was not established. Further, in pursuance to the notices dated 21.11.2008 and 23.6.2009, why no action was taken and exparte proceedings were not initiated if valid notice was served. It was also held that Manoj Kumar was never employed as accountant of the dealer-firm. The findings of fact were not shown to be erroneous. Even otherwise, on merits, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) has noticed that against the gross taxable turnover of ₹ 1,55,42,195/-, the dealer was in possession and had produced VAT C-4 and tax invoices amounting to ₹ 1,55,04,710/- and wanted the same to be accepted in appeal stage. The dealer was entitled to the benefit of input tax credit and the liability could have been fastened only on the remaining amount.
Furthermore, the appeal is barred by 345 days. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons mentioned in the application do not fall within the expression 'sufficient cause' - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 897
Arrear of tax dues - Request of time to make the payment - Held that:- In the event of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., takes drastic steps to cancel the dealership, not only the petitioner will be affected but the interest of revenue will also be affected, since it would delay recovering all taxes further. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has now agreed to pay the entire arrears due and not disputing the liability. In such circumstances, indulgence can be granted to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 896
Levy of penalty under Section 27 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act - Violation of Section 27(1)(a) - Held that:- there is no return of assessment under Section 22 (2) of the Act by the assessee. Further, as is evident from Section 27 (1) (a) and (3) of the Act, there is no escaped turnover with regard to any assessment, as no return has been filed by the assessee under Section 22 (2). In any event, the inspection was done in the middle of the assessment year and, therefore, there being no assessment as contemplated under Section 22 (2), the said act of the assessee will not fall under the case of escaped turnover as has been rightly held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a detailed analysis and arrived at the reasoning as above and we find no ground to interfere with the said decision of the Tribunal. - There is no question of law, much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this revision - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 895
Detention of goods - In Form KK, it was mentioned that the goods are moved to Hyderabad instead of Tirupur - Bonafide mistake - Held that:- Court in series of writ petitions, directed the goods to be released on payment of the tax component. - Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to release the goods on payment of the tax component in a sum of ₹ 56,696 - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 894
Levy of differential tax and interest - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that all sales transactions for the relevant assessment year were recorded in the account books of the assessee and there was admittedly no attempt at concealment/ misinformation by the respondent assessee in the returns filed. The Appellate Authority and the Tax Board held that in the circumstances mere levy of additional tax and statutory interest on interpretation of the governing entries and consequent classification of the assessed goods against the say of the respondent assessee could not have entailed any automatic levy of penalty on the assessee. The Tax Board and the appellate authority have taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Shree Krishna Electricals (2009 (4) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) to set aside the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer. - The revision petition as filed by the department does not critique the judgment of the Tax Board or even remotely suggest as to how the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Krishna Electricals (2009 (4) TMI 428 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) relied upon by the Tax Board is not applicable in the facts of the case to the issue of levy of penalty on the assessee under Section 61 of the 1994 Act - Decided against Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
