|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 773 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 882 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order dated May 13, 2005 of the JCCT (Appeals), Bangalore City Division 1, Bangalore holding that the provisional assessment order passed was valid under section 5C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957?
Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order dated May 13, 2005 of the JCCT (Appeals), Bangalore City Division 1, Bangalore, holding the transaction between the petitioner and Mysore Construction Co., is liable for tax?
Held that:- The assessing officer was justified in excluding the turnover by relying upon section 5C of the KST Act. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was also justified in dismissing the appeal and similarly the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is also right in dismissing the second appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the petition is dismissed and the questions of law answered against the assessee.
-
2009 (12) TMI 881 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether the delay in filing of the appeal beyond the period of 60 days prescribed by section 68(2)(a) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, could be condoned by entertaining an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Held that:- The delay in filing the appeal beyond the period specified under section 62(4) and 63(2) could be condoned in the interest of justice and for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the appellate authority. However, in section 68(2)(a) a period of 60 days for filing the appeal before this court has been provided but there is no provision parallel to section 64 providing for condonation of delay.
The application(s) filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals also fail and are dismissed being time-barred.
-
2009 (12) TMI 880 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty under section 22(2) cancelled by Tribunal - Held that:- All that the assessee has done in this case was that they collected tax at the rate of 15 per cent as per the original rate without being aware of the reduction of tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The tax so collected was duly remitted to the Government. No amount was retained by the assessee
In the given set of facts the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under section 22(2) of the Act judiciously, properly and bonafidely, which requires no interference at our hands in the revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 38 of the Act.
-
2009 (12) TMI 879 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... authorities below that there involves mens rea in the conduct of the assessee which caused certain income from escapement of assessment. The discretion vested with the authorities has been rightly exercised by them. In the given set of facts, i.e., except the stock variation, no other material is unearthed during the inspection and there is also no imputation against the assessee that the assessee wilfully caused the escapement of levy of tax in deleting the penalty. The penalty can be imposed only if the assessing officer is satisfied on the basis of material records that because of the wilful non-disclosure of taxable turnover there is escapement of tax leviable and recorded such finding. In the absence of any wilful non-disclosure of taxable turnover on the part of the assessee we find that the deletion of the penalty is in consonance with the requirement of the provision under section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 878 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty leviable in terms of section 53(12)(a)(i) on account of the failure to stop the goods vehicle and to produce the documents, and then to proceed after verification of the same.
Held that:- The mere fact that the vehicle did not stop at the check-post which has been established in the instant case is sufficient to hold that there is violation of section 53(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape from the levy of penalty in terms of section 53(12) read with rule 159(4). Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant that on account of there being a long queue of vehicles, the goods vehicle in question could not be stopped or that there was mistake on the part of the driver in not stopping the vehicle cannot be accepted.
Considering the fact that in the instant case, the goods in question PVC pipes and as per the tax invoice four per cent has been shown to be the rate of taxation, we are of the view that the authorities concerned could not have levied 12.5 per cent of the value of the goods by way of penalty. Appeal is allowed in part
-
2009 (12) TMI 877 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble on record. The reasonings stated by the first appellate authority that the collection of tax is not in contravention to section 22 of the Act, is not correct. The fact remains that a sum of Rs. 9,999 has been collected towards tax and surcharge and that amount, which the assessee is not entitled to retain, has to be paid over to the Government. That is precisely the reason for imposition of 100 per cent penalty under section 22(2) of the Act. Neither the first appellate authority nor the Tribunal has given a factual finding that the said amounts collected as tax and surcharge has been paid over to the Government. It is clear from the orders of the first appellate authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal that the tax amount collected has been retained by the assessee and not been paid over. In such circumstances, the levy of penalty, in our view, is proper. The view taken by the authorities below is not correct. The appeal stands allowed. No costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 876 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemption claimed under the KST Act on the ground that the entire iron and steel purchased from registered dealers within the State and being second and subsequent dealers in the State was not liable to pay taxes
Held that:- On perusal of the said documents [form 32B now being counter-signed by the sellers], it is seen that the date of issue of the same is July 10, 2001, but have been handed over to the appellant only recently, i.e., subsequent to the order of the revisional authority impugned in this appeal.
The order passed by the revisional authority dated August 30, 2008 is set aside and a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the said documents and pass an order in accordance with law. Since we are remanding the matter to the assessing authority, the said authority is also directed to consider the case of the appellant with regard to the exemption sought by the appellant in accordance with law. In view of this order, the order passed by the appellate authority (third respondent herein) would also have no effect.
-
2009 (12) TMI 875 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority holding that there was no suppression established by the authorities to reassess the dealer under section 12A of the KST Act and to levy tax and penalty?
Held that:- The Tribunal without considering the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has wrongly stated that the Department did not have any information from the Income-tax Department, which according to us, prima facie is an irregularity committed by the Tribunal. Thus without considering the order of assessment, the Tribunal has observed as if the Department did not secure any information from the Department of Income-tax. Therefore, only on this short ground, the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has to be set aside, as the same is arbitrary and perverse. Answering the substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue
-
2009 (12) TMI 874 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund of the amount of penalty collected by the check-post authority directed - Held that:- It is for the authorities to ascertain as to whether there was just or sufficient reason or cause as explained by the assessee or person as the case may be to levy the penalty and after considering the said sufficient cause, penalty can be levied. In view of the same, we find that the appellate authority has accepted the cause shown by the appellant herein as "sufficient cause" for annulling the levy of penalty and the said order being revised by the revisional authority only on the premise of the violation of section 28A(2)(d) of the Act would be contrary to the spirit and intention behind sub-section (4) of section 22A of the Act and hence, we answer questions of law in favour of the appellant herein and against the Revenue in the facts and circumstances of case only.
-
2009 (12) TMI 873 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ide the order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. In view of the submissions of the learned Government advocate and in the light of the speech of the Minister for Finance on the floor of the Assembly while introducing resale tax, we are of the view that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Commissioner afresh in the light of proviso (x) to section 6B of the Act and the object of introducing resale tax by the State under section 6B of the Act as stated by the Finance Minister on the floor of the Assembly. Accordingly, without answering the questions of law, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated December 28, 2006 passed under section 22A(2) of the Act is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter afresh by giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee within a period of three months from today.
-
2009 (12) TMI 872 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty under section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Held that:- There is no error or any perversity in the approach of either the original authority or the appellate authority or the Tribunal and we are convinced that the finding of fact recorded by the original authority as confirmed on further appeals establishes wilful nondisclosure of the assessable turnover by the petitioner. The law relating to as to whether the REP licence and exim scrips are "goods" within the definition of section 2(j) of the Act, having been settled by the judgment of the honourable Division Bench of this court on April 4, 1994 in the case of P. S. Apparels [1994 (4) TMI 366 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], cannot be stated to have created any confusion in the minds of the petitioner/dealer, when on the facts also such was not the case of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 871 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether driving of bore-well is civil construction work entitling the petitioner to pay tax at compounded rate at two per cent under section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- The provisions of tax on works contract cannot be applied to bore-wells in the same way it applies to other wells. A well is normally constructed by digging and removing earth to sufficient depth for collection of water. Digging and removing of earth does not involve supply of any materials and so much so, the digging of well as such does not involve any tax on works contract. If the materials supplied are not civil construction materials such as PVC pipes, GI pipes and installation of motor, etc., then rate of tax at compounded rate under section 7(7) is not applicable. On the other hand, if the construction of bore-well involves construction of any room above it or a motor house or the like, the same should be treated as civil construction work on which tax liability could be settled at the compounded rate under section 7(7) of the Act.
Since none of the authorities below has considered the above aspects of the matter, which will be clear from the copies of contract, work bills issued by the petitioner and payments approved by the water authority and awarders we allow the revisions by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the assessing officer for recomputation of liability after verifying the contract.
-
2009 (12) TMI 870 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of benefit of sales tax exemption under sub-rule (4)(a) of rule 28A - Held that:- As LLSC was obliged to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of exemption from sales tax with effect from the date of issuance of entitlement/exemption certificate when the bar of placing the petitioner's industry on the negative list has been removed. Accordingly it is held that the order passed by the LLSC dated October 28, 1994 (P10) and the order passed by the HLSC August 5, 1995 (P12) are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.
As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion the order passed by the LLSC dated October 28, 1994 (P10) and the order passed by the HLSC dated August 5, 1995 (P12) are hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the LLSC to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by treating its application for grant of benefit of sales tax exemption under sub-rule (4)(a) of rule 28A by not treating the claim from the date of commercial production. The LLSC shall be at liberty to consider the claim of the petitioner from the date of application. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-
2009 (12) TMI 869 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether the Designated Officer at ICC can impose any penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Vat Act, 2005, for an offence committed (if any) under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Whether, after the goods are voluntarily reported at the ICC, before exit of the goods from Punjab State, the ICC authorities are authorised to make an enquiry regarding alleged evasion of tax, which is in the domain of the Assessing Authority where penalty under section 56 can be imposed, if any offence is committed?
Whether it could be said that there was an attempt to evade or avoid payment of tax by mere delayed movement of goods when the sale invoices/bills had been issued on March 26, 2007, goods were earmarked and goods receipts issued to the vehicles for their onward transmission to the consignees on the same date?
Held that:- There is nothing which prevented the assessee-company from maximizing the exhaustion of its exemption limit to pay tax by March 26, 2007 provided there were genuine purchase orders and goods available for sale. The authorities, merely on account of delayed movement of goods, in the face of the explanation put forth by the assessee, and in the absence of any material on record, in our considered opinion, cannot draw the only irresistible inference that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax. The assessing authority has based its finding of attempt to evade tax simply on the basis of its presumption and suspicion.
Therefore, the delayed movement of goods by itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax or the bills/sale invoices were ante-dated. Hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal/authorities under the VAT Act are based on no evidence and are liable to be set aside. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2009 (12) TMI 868 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether assessee are liable to pay tax under section 5(3)(ii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the differential tax on purchase of various items used in the manufacture of ice-cream which was stock transferred to outside State for sale in other States?
Held that:- If goods are manufactured or packed for own consumption and not for sale, then still probably the industrial unit purchasing raw material or packing material for manufacture or packing of goods other than for sale will not be entitled to concessional rate. We, therefore, allow the revisions by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and direct the assessing officer to revise the assessment by cancelling the demand of differential tax under section 5(3)(ii) of the Act for the raw materials or packing materials purchased at concessional rate which are used in the manufacture or packing of goods for stock transfer.
The question to be considered is whether purchase from SSI unit by availing of concessional rate will be sufficient compliance of payment in terms of column 8 of the Fifth Schedule. Since none of the authorities have considered the scope of exemption claimed by the assessee with reference to documents, we set aside the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority on this issue and remand the matter to the assessing officer for reconsideration after giving opportunity to the assessee. The sales tax revisions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
2009 (12) TMI 867 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ine Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) reported in 2002 125 STC 505 wherein it was held that the assessment in respect of the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, if made, on the basis of the returns filed and accounts maintained by the assessee and were not made on estimates, the assessment could be regarded only as an assessment under section 12(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to which the penal provisions of section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were not attracted. Therefore, the levy of penalty for those years is against the statutory provision. Here, in this case also, the relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the above referred to decision squarely covers the facts of the present case. In the light of the Division Bench judgment above referred to, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer and upheld by the Tribunal is set aside. The tax case revision is set aside. No costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 866 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the levy of additional sales tax at one per cent so as to bring the rate of tax to four per cent in respect of inter-State sale of cotton during the assessment year 1996-97 is correct when the rate of tax under the local Act is only three per cent?
Held that:- The section 8(2A) categorically provides that if the goods are exempted under the local Act, generally the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act is nil. If the local tax is less than four per cent, then the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act is also at a lower rate, as provided under the local Act. Incidentally, the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1998 (2) TMI 558 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has also stated that moreover, it was impermissible to add additional sales tax to the lower rate of levy made in the public interest, in respect of the goods, to which a notification had been framed under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act. When it is the law laid down in respect of the goods for which the notification has been issued under section 8(5) of the Act, there cannot be any levy of additional sales tax, as the section clearly states that the Central sales tax would be at a lower rate as that of the rate fixed in the local Sales Tax Act. W.P. dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 865 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Installed production capacity of the petitioner's unit been fixed at 30,000 M.T. of vanaspati ghee per year
Held that:- Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the composition amount should have been calculated treating the installed production capacity as 18,750 M.T. per year and not by 30,000 M.T. We find that the said argument was raised in reply to the show-cause notice but has not been addressed by respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.
The Commissioner has not considered the capacity of other parts of the unit nor there appears to be any indication thereof in the survey report done by the Deputy Commissioner. As against this, the petitioner has filed various documents which cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant or manufactured. The plant was got installed through Alfa Lavel India Limited and Mech Process Engineers P. Ltd. They supplied the plant and machineries on turnkey basis. The agreements dated July 4, 1991 and July 2, 1991, with these suppliers are on the record and they prima facie do support the case of the petitioner. Thus the matter requires reconsideration by respondent No. 2, in the light of the observations made. W.P. allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (12) TMI 864 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether short payment of tax by the dealers along with monthly returns either on account of non-inclusion of turnover or failure to return turnover at the full rate of tax attracts interest under section 23(3A) of the Act?
Held that:- We overrule the judgment in P.K. Damodaran's case [2003 (2) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT] above referred to and allow the revision cases by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and by restoring the interest levied under section 23(3A). However, counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that but for the favourable orders issued by the Tribunal, though now found to be wrong by this court, the respondents should have settled the liability towards interest under the Amnesty Scheme, that was prevalent up to March 31, 2009. We find force in this contention because had the Tribunal dismissed the appeals probably the respondents would have settled the liability under the Amnesty Scheme.
We therefore direct the assessing officer to grant amnesty benefit to the respondents reducing the interest in terms of the scheme and allow settlement of liability by demanding further interest at one per cent per month for the amnesty amount payable from the last date for payment under the amnesty scheme till date of payment.
-
2009 (12) TMI 863 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the commodity in question, which is in the nature of by-product of "maize" is subjected to payment of sales tax under the Sales Tax Acts and if so, under which entry and if they are exempt from payment of sales tax then under which entry?
Held that:- When there is a specific entry dealing with exemption then in such event, the general entry dealing with the commodity would not be attracted. Its application gets excluded.
The petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders (annexures P17A to 17E) passed by the Upper Commissioner are quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. As a result thereof, the assessing officer is directed to pass fresh assessment orders for the period in question treating the two commodities to be exempt from payment of sales tax under Central/State sales tax laws during the period under consideration.
............
|
