|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 304 Records
-
1993 (3) TMI 331
Issues:
Challenge to order imposing penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the subsequent application for stay of recovery of penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, filed a petition to quash the order (exhibit P5) of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, which disposed of an application for stay of recovery of the penalty imposed under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The order imposing penalty (exhibit P1) was preceded by a notice (exhibit P2) alleging diversion of petroleum products by the petitioner to stations in Kerala without being delivered at the intended destination in Mahe.
2. The petitioner refuted the allegations in a detailed statement of objections (exhibit P3), asserting proper dispatch procedures and denying responsibility for omissions by checkpost authorities. The objections were overruled, and a penalty of rupees thirty lakhs was imposed under section 45A(1)(b). An application for stay (exhibit P4) was filed, leading to the order (exhibit P5) directing payment of 50% of the penalty and furnishing security for the balance.
3. The petitioner challenged exhibit P5, citing the failure to consider relevant aspects as per established legal principles. The court referred to previous decisions emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of contentions in applications for stay, ensuring a fair assessment of the case's merits and circumstances.
4. The court highlighted the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the necessity for a detailed investigation before imposing penalties. It stressed the importance of granting the benefit of stay when significant questions are at stake, especially considering that the penalty, not tax, was in question. The court noted the petitioner's cooperation and the absence of impediments to recovery if the stay was granted.
5. Concluding that exhibit P5 was passed without due consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, the court quashed the order and directed the Deputy Commissioner to expedite the disposal of the application (exhibit P4) within two months. Pending the application's disposal, recovery of the penalty amount was to be kept in abeyance.
6. The court's decision to quash exhibit P5 was based on the failure to address crucial aspects and the necessity for a fair and thorough examination of the petitioner's objections. The directive for expeditious disposal of exhibit P4 aimed at ensuring justice and prompt resolution of the matter.
This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, challenges raised by the petitioner, court's considerations, and the ultimate decision to quash the order and expedite the application's disposal.
-
1993 (3) TMI 330
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 14(5) of the 1941 Act regarding sealing of godowns for tax evasion.
Analysis:
The judgment focuses on the interpretation of Section 14(5) of the 1941 Act concerning the power of appropriate officers to seal godowns suspected of tax evasion. The applicant's advocate argued that Section 14(5) should be read in conjunction with the entire Section 14 to prevent arbitrary sealing of godowns by tax officers. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the power under Section 14(5) must be exercised under specific conditions, such as the necessity for a search or investigation based on evidence of tax evasion. The Tribunal emphasized that a Commercial Tax Officer cannot seal a godown without fulfilling the conditions precedent outlined in the law. The purpose of Section 14(5) is to seal a place of business only under specific circumstances related to tax evasion, not at the officer's discretion.
The Tribunal examined the impugned order dated February 12, 1993, which lacked recorded reasons necessary for sealing the godowns. The order indicated that the officer sealed the godowns because the person in charge did not open them due to the late hour, which was found to be untrue. The Tribunal noted that the order did not reflect the officer's reasons for deeming a search or entry necessary. The respondent attempted to justify the sealing in the affidavit-in-opposition, citing findings from previous days, but these reasons were not recorded in the order. The Tribunal held that the sealing was unjustified, arbitrary, and lacked the essential requirements mandated by Section 14(5) of the Act.
Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated February 12, 1993, directing the Commercial Tax Officer to unseal the godowns within forty-eight hours. The Tribunal did not allow the respondents to make a list of goods stored in the sealed godowns due to the invalidity of the order. Since the main issue was resolved, the Tribunal did not delve into other arguments or allegations made by the parties.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application, quashed the sealing order, and instructed the officer to unseal the godowns promptly. The judgment was delivered by the Tribunal, comprising Ray L.N. and Banerji P.C., JJ., with P.C. Banerji concurring. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1993 (3) TMI 329
Issues: Assessment order based on best judgment, reclassification of turnover, revisional authority's power to substitute judgment, legality and propriety of assessing authority's order, determination of gross profit percentage, scope of revisional authority under section 21 of the Act.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a revision petition filed by an assessee challenging an assessment order made for a specific period. The assessing authority reclassified the turnover of the sale of goods, leading to a revised taxable turnover amount. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner proposed a revision of the assessment order, suggesting a higher gross profit percentage be applied to determine the turnover. The assessee objected, asserting that the gross profit did not exceed 5%, although the Deputy Commissioner insisted on a 15% gross profit rate. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upheld the Deputy Commissioner's order.
The key argument raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the revisional authority cannot replace the assessing authority's best judgment unless there is illegality or impropriety in the original order. The revisional authority's power under section 21 of the Act is to ensure the legality and propriety of the subordinate authority's order. It was contended that the assessing authority's acceptance of a 10% gross profit should not be substituted with 15% without specific material to support the change. The Government Advocate argued that a 10% gross profit was not acceptable in the business line and that a businessman would typically aim for a 15% profit margin.
The High Court emphasized that unless the assessing authority's best judgment is arbitrary or capricious, it cannot be deemed illegal or improper. The revisional authority can intervene if relevant principles or facts were not considered by the assessing authority. In this case, it was noted that there was no indication that a 15% gross profit was standard in the business line, and the proposition notice lacked a basis for the 15% profit assertion. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner's order and the Tribunal's decision were set aside, and the revision petition was allowed.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adherence to legal principles and the necessity for the revisional authority to demonstrate the illegality or impropriety of the assessing authority's order before substituting their judgment. It underscores the requirement for clear reasoning and factual basis in assessment decisions to withstand scrutiny under the law.
-
1993 (3) TMI 328
Issues:
1. Grant of eligibility certificate under Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987.
2. Calculation and communication of sales tax exemption amount.
3. Refusal of extension of eligibility certificate and demand for excess tax payment.
4. Lack of opportunity of hearing before passing impugned orders.
5. Negligence of respondents in informing petitioner about sales tax exemption limit.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner established an industry and applied for an eligibility certificate under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987. The petitioner's unit was recommended for the grant of the certificate, and it was subsequently renewed. However, the exact amount for which exemption was granted was not specified in the certificate. The petitioner repeatedly requested information on the total exemption amount but received no clear response from the authorities.
2. The respondents contended that the eligibility certificate was subject to a maximum exemption limit. The petitioner was found entitled to a benefit of 85% of a specific amount, which was less than the total exemption claimed by the petitioner. The respondents failed to communicate the exact exemption amount to the petitioner, leading to confusion and disputes regarding the tax liability beyond the exemption limit.
3. The petitioner's request for an extension of the eligibility certificate was denied as it had already exceeded the entitled exemption amount. The petitioner was directed to deposit the excess tax and warned of penalties for non-compliance. The petitioner sought details of deductions made from the fixed assets value but faced challenges in obtaining clear information from the respondents, impacting its tax obligations and financial planning.
4. The petitioner argued that the orders refusing extension and demanding excess tax payment were against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the orders. The petitioner cited a legal precedent to support the claim of procedural fairness in administrative decisions affecting its tax liabilities.
5. The court found that the respondents had not adequately informed the petitioner about the total sales tax exemption granted, leading to confusion and inability to appeal or recover taxes from purchasers. The court noted the negligence of the respondents in communicating crucial information, causing prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order demanding excess tax payment, and held the petitioner liable for sales tax only on goods sold after a specified date.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of clear communication in tax exemption schemes, emphasized procedural fairness in administrative decisions, and addressed the consequences of negligence on the part of authorities in informing taxpayers about their obligations.
-
1993 (3) TMI 327
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale of bags packed with cement amounts to resale of the bags in West Bengal within the meaning of section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Whether the applicant-company is entitled to a concessional rate of tax for the purchase of packing materials (bags) under section 5(1)(aa) or section 5(1)(bb) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
3. Whether the amendment of the registration certificate to include packing materials in the resale column is justified.
4. Whether there is any contravention of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 300A, 303, and 304 of the Constitution of India.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Resale of Bags Packed with Cement:
The applicant-company argued that the sale of bags packed with cement should be considered as resale of the bags in West Bengal. The Commercial Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Additional Commissioner rejected this claim, stating that the bags undergo changes (such as stamping and sealing) and do not remain in the same condition as when purchased. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that resale implies selling the purchased goods in the same condition without substantial change. Since the bags are used for packing cement and undergo changes, their sale cannot be considered resale under section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Tax:
The applicant initially claimed entitlement to a concessional rate of tax under section 5(1)(bb) but later relied on section 5(1)(aa). Section 5(1)(bb) applies to manufacturers within West Bengal, which the applicant is not. Section 5(1)(aa) allows a concessional rate for goods intended for resale in West Bengal. The Tribunal concluded that since the bags are used for packing cement and undergo changes, they do not qualify for resale. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a concessional rate of tax for the purchase of bags under section 5(1)(aa).
3. Amendment of Registration Certificate:
The applicant sought an amendment to include packing materials in the resale column of its registration certificate. The Commercial Tax Officer and higher authorities rejected this request, stating that the bags are used in the manufacturing process and not for resale. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the amendment of the registration certificate under rule 11(3)(b) is not automatic and depends on the intention for resale. Since the bags are not resold in the same condition, the amendment was rightly declined.
4. Contravention of Constitutional Articles:
The applicant claimed that the orders were violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. However, the Tribunal found no merit in these claims. Additionally, the applicant mentioned contravention of articles 303 and 304 in written submissions, but this was not argued orally or included in the main application. The Tribunal concluded that there was no contravention of these constitutional provisions.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the activities of the applicant do not amount to resale of bags in West Bengal. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to a concessional rate of tax under section 5(1)(aa) or section 5(1)(bb) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The amendment of the registration certificate was also rightly declined. No order was made for costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 326
Issues:
Liability of the petitioner regarding turnover pertaining to hand pounded rice, interpretation of rule 25-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, entitlement to set-off under the Fourth Schedule, appeal process under sections 20 and 22 of the Act, applicability of the principle of res judicata in statutory proceedings, correctness of orders made by appellate authorities, justification of rejecting appeals by the Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court of Karnataka heard revision petitions concerning the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 regarding the liability of the petitioner for turnover related to hand pounded rice. The petitioner held a recognition certificate under rule 25-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, claiming exemption from tax on the turnover. However, the assessing authority rejected this claim and also denied the petitioner's entitlement to set-off under the Fourth Schedule. The first appellate authority upheld the denial of exemption but remanded the set-off issue back to the assessing authority. Subsequently, the assessing authority allowed the set-off, leading to another appeal by the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the petitioner was precluded from raising the exemption issue again, leading to the current revision petitions. The Court analyzed the appeal process under sections 20 and 22 of the Act, emphasizing the authority of the appellate bodies to confirm, reduce, annul assessments, or order fresh assessments. The Revenue contended that the earlier appellate findings precluded further challenges, while the petitioner argued against such limitations, citing the absence of provisions similar to section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Act. The Court examined the principle of res judicata in statutory proceedings, drawing on Supreme Court precedents to establish that orders made by lower appellate authorities could be challenged before higher authorities. The judgment highlighted the need for finality in decisions while recognizing the right to challenge earlier findings in subsequent appeals. The Court ultimately allowed the petitions, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for further consideration, rejecting the Tribunal's justification for dismissing the appeals.
-
1993 (3) TMI 325
Issues:
1. Demand for payment of turnover tax on tea sales.
2. Legality of the demand and threat of penalty.
3. Nature of turnover tax and provisional demands.
4. Admissibility of liability in monthly returns.
5. Application of Kerala General Sales Tax Rules.
6. Validity of demands made in form No. 14D.
7. Jurisdiction of assessing authority.
8. Constitutionality of retrospective levy of turnover tax.
9. Government's discretion on retrospective levy.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Kerala High Court addressed multiple issues concerning the demand for payment of turnover tax on tea sales by small traders. The traders contested the demands and threats of penalty imposed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Finance Act of 1992 made the turnover of tea subject to a 1/4 per cent tax rate, retroactively from April 1, 1992. The traders challenged the demands on the grounds of illegality and lack of authority under the law.
The traders argued that turnover tax is an annual tax and cannot be provisionally demanded before the end of the assessment year. However, the court found in favor of the traders on another ground. The traders had not admitted liability for any tax amount in their monthly returns, making the demands in form No. 14D invalid. The court highlighted the requirements of rule 21, which governs the submission of monthly returns and provisional assessments for tax payments.
The court emphasized that form No. 14D only allows for the payment of the tax amount admitted to be due by the dealer in the return. Since the traders did not admit any liability in their returns, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to issue demands in form No. 14D. Therefore, the notices of demand and penalty threats were deemed unsustainable and were quashed.
Regarding the constitutionality of the retrospective levy of turnover tax, the court ruled that unless the levy violates constitutional provisions, particularly Parts III, XI, or XIII, it cannot be struck down. The court found no violation of fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions, upholding the legality of the retrospective levy from April 1, 1992.
The judgment concluded by quashing the impugned notices and demands in the original petitions, allowing the petitions to that extent without costs. The court suggested that traders could represent their hardships to the government regarding the retrospective levy, leaving the matter to the government's discretion.
-
1993 (3) TMI 324
Issues:
Detention of goods at sales tax check-post, suspicion of tax evasion, imposition of penalty, failure to serve order to the petitioner, challenge to the legality of the order.
Analysis:
The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Government for printing telephone directories and faced detention of goods at a sales tax check-post due to suspicion of tax evasion. The petitioner produced all necessary documents, including a letter certifying the legitimacy of the transport, but was still required to furnish a bank guarantee for the release of goods. The Enquiry Officer imposed a penalty without serving the order to the petitioner, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to appeal. The High Court criticized the Officer's failure to communicate effectively, emphasizing that such orders impact parties' rights. The Court proceeded to review the order on its merits, deeming it illegal and unsustainable.
The Enquiry Officer's order alleged an attempt at tax evasion based on the petitioner's business activities. However, the Court noted that being an unregistered dealer alone cannot justify detention of goods under the Sales Tax Act. The Court highlighted that suspicion of tax evasion must be based on concrete facts, not merely on the lack of registration. The Court analyzed the transaction between the petitioner and the Government, concluding that it did not constitute a sale as essential conditions for a sale were not met. The Court emphasized that the Enquiry Officer's satisfaction of tax evasion lacked sufficient evidence and mens rea, as established in previous case law.
The Court interpreted Section 29A of the Act, emphasizing that detention of goods should only occur in cases of genuine tax evasion attempts. Mere suspicion or lack of registration is insufficient grounds for detention. The Court referenced a previous case to support the requirement of concrete facts for alleging tax evasion. Ultimately, the Court held that the Enquiry Officer's order lacked jurisdiction and quashed it. The Court stressed that Section 29A is not meant to address bona fide disputes over tax liability, recommending that such disputes be resolved through proper assessment procedures rather than detention at check-posts.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the Enquiry Officer's order. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1993 (3) TMI 323
Issues:
1. Challenge to the reopening of assessment under the CST Act.
2. Appeal against the revised order of assessment.
3. Seeking stay of recovery proceedings pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to grant interim relief.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the reopening of assessment under the CST Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The Deputy Commissioner, in a suo motu revision, concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption under a specific notification. The petitioner appealed this decision before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) under section 39 of the KGST Act. However, before the appeal could be filed, a revised order of assessment was made, demanding further payment. The petitioner sought a stay on the recovery proceedings pending the appeal.
2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not dispose of the appeal or the stay application, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a stay. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Tribunal lacked the power to grant interim relief, leaving him with no statutory forum for such relief. The court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to stay recovery proceedings pending the appeal.
3. Section 39 of the KGST Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in suo motu revision. The court noted that the Tribunal had the discretion to give directions regarding payment of disputed tax, subject to sufficient security being furnished. The proviso under this section empowered the Tribunal to stay recovery of the tax due pending the appeal, as the tax amount had been determined based on the order under challenge.
4. The court emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal, with its wide appellate powers, could pass interim orders necessary for the interests of justice. It cited precedents where appellate bodies were deemed to possess inherent powers to grant stays as incidental to their appellate jurisdiction. The court held that the Tribunal had the authority to stay recovery proceedings after a remit, even before the completion of the revised assessment. The petitioner was directed to approach the Tribunal for necessary orders, and the recovery proceedings were stayed for six months.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner time to seek interim relief from the Appellate Tribunal.
-
1993 (3) TMI 322
Issues:
Assessment of taxable turnover, maintainability of accounts under Section 12 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, validity of Sales Tax Tribunal's order.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the assessment of taxable turnover by the Sales Tax Tribunal, where the assessee contested the assessability of Rs. 60,000 representing the estimated turnover of sales of angle iron. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 60,000 to the taxable turnover, citing the lack of proper manufacturing accounts as required by Section 12 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the account books of the assessee primarily due to non-compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, as it could not establish the utilization of the imported angle iron. However, the Tribunal did not provide a definite finding on other aspects of the account books.
The assessee argued that the account books could not be rejected solely based on non-compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 12, citing a precedent where the court held that a dealer engaged in the manufacture and sale of exempted goods is not required to maintain such accounts. The court emphasized that different considerations may arise if accounts were not maintained as required by sub-section (1) of Section 12, which mandates dealers to maintain true and correct accounts of goods sold and bought. The Sales Tax Officer had made the addition based on various grounds, including the discrepancy in purchases of angle iron in different assessment years.
The court, following the precedent, ruled that the Sales Tax Tribunal's order could not be sustained solely on the ground of non-maintenance of manufacturing accounts. However, the court noted that the Tribunal did not conclusively address other grounds for the addition to the taxable turnover. As such, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision, emphasizing that the fact-finding authority should determine the factual disputes regarding the sale of angle iron. The revision was partly allowed, and no costs were awarded.
In conclusion, the court's decision highlighted the importance of maintaining proper accounts under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and emphasized the need for fact-based determinations in tax assessments. The case serves as a reminder of the legal requirements for maintaining accurate records and the significance of factual findings in tax disputes.
-
1993 (3) TMI 321
Issues Involved:1. Whether the supply of pre-stressed concrete cement poles by the applicant to the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) amounted to a sale. 2. Whether the amount of sale price should be determined as the price fixed per pole or the net realization after deducting the value of cement and steel supplied by GEB. Issue 1: Whether the supply of pre-stressed concrete cement poles by the applicant to the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) amounted to a sale.The Tribunal found that the contract was for the manufacture and supply of pre-stressed concrete poles. The contract specified the quantity of poles to be supplied, the price per pole, and the payment terms, including the recovery of costs for materials supplied by GEB. The contractor was responsible for providing other materials and labor. The Tribunal concluded that the predominant intention was 'sale' even though the contract was termed as a works contract, and that the property in the materials passed to the contractor. The Tribunal also noted that the contractor was liable for the cost of materials used in damaged or rejected poles, indicating the passing of property in cement and steel to the contractor. The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sale and not a works contract. The Supreme Court's distinction between a contract of sale and a contract for work and labor was referenced, noting that the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties must be considered. The Tribunal's conclusion was that the transaction was a sale, as the essence of the contract was the delivery of ready-made poles to GEB at a prescribed rate. The applicant's argument that the contract was a works contract was rejected. The terms and conditions of the contract, including the establishment of a factory and the provision of space for storing raw materials and finished products, were not inconsistent with a contract of sale. The Tribunal's interpretation that the materials supplied by GEB remained its property only until they were used in the manufacture of poles, after which the poles became the property of the contractor, was upheld. Therefore, the Court answered the first question in the negative, affirming that the supply of pre-stressed concrete poles by the applicant to GEB amounted to a sale. Issue 2: Whether the amount of sale price should be determined as the price fixed per pole or the net realization after deducting the value of cement and steel supplied by GEB.The Tribunal held that the sale price of the poles was the amount charged per pole as a unit, not the net realization after deducting the value of cement and steel supplied by GEB. The Tribunal's hesitation in concluding that the supply of materials was not a purchase by the contractor was noted, but it ultimately held that the sale price indicated in Schedule B to the works order was the price per pole. The contractor's deduction of the value of cement and steel from the gross price in the final bills did not affect the determination of the sale price. The Court held that once it was determined that sales tax was leviable on the price of concrete poles supplied by the applicant to GEB, the question of deducting the value of cement and steel supplied by GEB did not arise. The applicant-contractor's equitable considerations regarding the net realization could be raised before the Tribunal, but in law, the sale price was the amount charged per pole as a unit. Therefore, the Court answered the second question in the negative, affirming that the amount of sale price was the price fixed per pole and not the net realization after deducting the value of cement and steel supplied by GEB. Conclusion:Both questions were answered in the negative, against the assessee. The supply of pre-stressed concrete poles by the applicant to GEB amounted to a sale, and the sale price was the amount charged per pole as a unit, not the net realization after deducting the value of cement and steel supplied by GEB. There was no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 320
Issues:
1. Challenge to demand for surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, on the amount paid for compounding under section 7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Challenge to demand for turnover tax from the petitioners who are abkari contractors.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners, abkari contractors holding licenses for arrack shops in Kerala, challenged the demand for surcharge and turnover tax by the respondents despite opting for compounding under section 7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioners contended that since they had already compounded the tax payable at a lump sum, they should not be required to pay any further amount as surcharge or turnover tax. Additionally, they argued that the amount paid for compounding did not constitute sales tax and hence surcharge should not be levied on that amount. The court found no merit in these contentions.
2. Section 7(14) of the Act allows dealers to compound the tax payable by paying 20% of the rental amount under the Abkari Act, with a deduction for the tax paid on arrack purchases. This provision provides an alternative method of tax payment in place of the general levy under section 5(1)(v). The court clarified that the compounding provision does not discharge all tax liabilities imposed by the State under its legislative powers. Surcharge, turnover tax, and additional tax are separate levies payable under different enactments, and opting for compounding under section 7(14) does not exempt dealers from these additional payments.
3. The court rejected the argument that the amount paid for compounding does not constitute sales tax and therefore should not be subject to surcharge. It emphasized that the amount paid under section 7(14) is essentially sales tax, albeit calculated through a different method. The court highlighted that the compounding fee is directly related to the purchases and sales made by the licensees, making it a form of sales tax. Denying the petitioners' contentions, the court upheld the demand for surcharge and turnover tax, stating that the compounding provision does not absolve dealers from these additional tax liabilities.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the original petitions challenging the demand for surcharge and turnover tax on the amount paid for compounding under section 7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The judgment clarified that opting for compounding does not exempt dealers from other tax obligations and that the amount paid under the compounding provision is considered as sales tax, making it subject to surcharge and turnover tax.
-
1993 (3) TMI 319
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
2. Whether recovery of arrears of sales tax from a sick industrial company is barred under Section 22(1) of the Act.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a show cause notice issued regarding the recovery of arrears of sales tax from a company declared a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The central issue was whether Section 22(1) of the Act prohibits the recovery action. The Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had declared the company as a sick industrial company, and the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. (ICICI) was appointed to examine the viability for revival. The main contention was whether the distress sale of the company's properties for sales tax dues was permissible under Section 22(1) of the Act.
2. The petitioners argued that the recovery action for sales tax dues was barred under Section 22(1) of the Act due to the pending scheme for the company's revival. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the recovery of legitimate dues was not prohibited under the Act. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 22(1) which suspends legal proceedings against an industrial company under certain conditions, including when a scheme for revival is under consideration. The court noted that a scheme for the company's rehabilitation was being prepared, as evidenced by the report submitted by ICICI to BIFR, thus attracting the bar under Section 22(1).
3. The court examined the nature of the recovery action taken by the respondents for sales tax dues. It was observed that the actions, including issuing notices under the Land Revenue Code and garnishee orders to banks, constituted proceedings for execution or distress against the company's properties. The court referred to precedents and legal definitions to determine that such actions fell within the scope of Section 22(1) prohibition on distress actions against sick industrial companies.
4. Relying on a Supreme Court decision and principles of equity, the court concluded that the recovery actions for sales tax dues against the sick industrial company were indeed barred under Section 22(1) of the Act. The court allowed the petition, quashed the recovery notices and orders, and prohibited the respondents from employing coercive recovery processes. However, the court clarified that the respondents could seek permission from BIFR to proceed with the recoveries, as provided under Section 22(1) of the Act.
In summary, the judgment centered on the interpretation of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and determined that recovery actions for sales tax dues against a sick industrial company were prohibited under the Act, given the pending scheme for the company's revival. The court allowed the petition, quashed the recovery notices and orders, and directed the respondents to seek permission from BIFR for further recovery actions.
-
1993 (3) TMI 318
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs.1,38,577 realised @1 per bilty per customer through the bills and credited to a separate account called ’DHARMADA’ was not assessable to tax as revenue receipt?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. This was a proper case where the High Court ought to have directed the Tribunal to state the said question under Section 256(2) of the Act - the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the application filed by Revenue under Section 256(2) is allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 317
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of HPCL's notional profit margin in the assessable value of steel drums.
2. Inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value.
3. Inclusion of the cost of wrapping material in the assessable value.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of HPCL's Notional Profit Margin:
The appellants, M/s. Vijay Tanks and Vessels Pvt. Ltd., manufactured steel drums from materials supplied by HPCL. The dispute arose when the Department issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to add a 10% notional profit margin of HPCL to the assessable value of the drums. The Assistant Collector justified this addition, and the Collector (Appeals) upheld it, reasoning that the notional profit margin of HPCL should be included as it would have been part of the price if HPCL sold the drums.
However, the appellants argued that the addition of this notional profit margin was unwarranted as their fabrication charges already included their manufacturing cost and profit. They cited several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, which clarified that only the manufacturer's profit, not the customer's profit, should be included in the assessable value.
Upon review, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that the steel drums were not sold by the appellants to HPCL at a normal price in the course of wholesale trade. Therefore, the case did not fall under the main definition of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the assessable value should be determined based on the manufacturer's cost and profit, excluding the customer's notional profit margin.
2. Inclusion of Transportation Charges:
The transportation charges pertained to the transport of steel sheets from the railway siding to the appellants' factory. The Assistant Collector included these charges in the assessable value, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants contended that these charges were borne by them and included in their fabrication charges, not billed separately to HPCL.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the transportation charges were claimed separately from HPCL and concluded that these charges were already included in the fabrication charges. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the transportation charges should not be added again to the assessable value.
3. Inclusion of Cost of Wrapping Material:
The wrapping material used for the steel sheets was included in the cost of the steel sheets. The Assistant Collector included the cost of this wrapping material in the assessable value, which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants argued that the cost of the wrapping material was already accounted for in the cost of the steel sheets.
The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that the cost of the wrapping material was already included in the cost of the steel sheets as per the Chartered Accountant's Certificate. Therefore, the cost of the wrapping material should not be added again to the assessable value.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, ruling that the 10% notional profit margin of HPCL, transportation charges, and the cost of wrapping material should not be included in the assessable value of the steel drums. The Tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1993 (3) TMI 316
Whether the respondents-assessees were entitled to the benefit of rule 9(f) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The assessee in these appeals was a dealer of firewood and had contracted for the purchase and sale of firewood. The High Court, on the basis of the material before it, gave the benefit of rule 9(f) of the Rules to the assessee no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court as relying on Kutty & Co. v. State of Kerala [1978 (3) TMI 192 - KERALA HIGH COURT]
-
1993 (3) TMI 315
Whether for the purchases and sales made by the respondent-assessee, was he liable to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Relying upon the exemption notification issued under section 10 of the Act the High Court came to the conclusion that the synthetic gems were exempt from the payment of tax under the Act.
-
1993 (3) TMI 312
Whether goat/ sheep and the meat got after slaughtering the animal are the same category of goods for the purposes of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. High court order that both goat/sheep and the meat were the same goods for the purposes of sales tax under the Act set aside.
-
1993 (3) TMI 311
Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that trade discount allowed by the assessee to their customers is not the part of the sale price within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and so not includible in the taxable turnover?
Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in directing the deletion of the amounts of trade discount from the taxable turnover of the assessee for all or any of the reasons stated by it?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. High Court answered the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
1993 (3) TMI 310
Sales tax application made on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra rejected to direct the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer to the High Court the following question - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that in purchasing materials for the construction of the barges intended for use in the business of sea transport the opponent-company was not carrying on the business of buying goods and hence was not a dealer as defined by clause (11) of section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?
Held that:- Appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court rejecting the sales tax application, passed on January 24, 1977, is set aside. The sales tax application is made absolute. The Sales Tax Tribunal shall refer the aforementioned question to the High Court for decision. The High Court shall consider the reference in the light of the judgments aforementioned as also such other judgments as may appear to it to be relevant.
........
|
9911796707
