|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 53 of 53 Records
-
2015 (6) TMI 227 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of tax on purchase value - Held that:- Sales had been done by the petitioner to the tune of ₹ 47,05,257/-. In view of Section 3(4)(a)(ii) extracted supra, the respondent has no jurisdiction to assess the tax based on the purchase value. According to the petitioner, the respondent had taken the purchase value as yardstick without considering the provisions of the Act. The statute speaks about the Sales Tax turnover alone for the purpose of liability under section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. - In the light of the provisions under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as the sales of the petitioner are less than ₹ 50,00,000/-, the impuged order is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - respondent has failed to note that the petitioner in inconformity with Section 19(10) (a) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act of 2006 and Rule 10(2) - Held that:- Petitioner has submitted all the necessary details, more particularly the information such as Registration Certificate Numbers under the TNVAT Act of the sellers and dealers. Therefore, when the petitioner has initially discharged his burden as per Section 19(10)(a) of the TNVAT Act, showing that the goods have been subjected to tax at an earlier stage, the respondent ought to have considered the same. Although he is liable to apply his mind, without doing so, by merely resorting to the alleged demand made by the petitioner before the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Wing. With regard to the proposal of reversal of Input Tax Credit, over ruling all the objections, without giving any other reasons, has wrongly come to the conclusion - the impugned orders are set aside, as the Assessment Orders are passed without considering the objections and by merely taking note of the proposal of the Enforcement Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 192 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - Transportation of goods without proper documents - Held that:- Petitioner, being a transporter, carrying on business in the State, is hereby directed to pay tax for release of the goods. Insofar as the compounding fee is concerned, the authority will proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the amount demanded under the compounding fee shall not be made a pre-condition for release of the goods and the authorities are to proceed in accordance with law for compounding fee following the procedure prescribed and the petitioner is entitled to file revision under section 54 of the Act, if so advised. - Decision in the case of MOHAN SHARMA v. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2013 (4) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Security for the balance amount of taxes not paid - Held that:- Court in a similar occasion, while considering an identical circumstances, dealing with a similar impugned order, modified only the second condition to one of directing the petitioner to execute the personal bond instead of furnishing bank guarantee for the balance amount of tax and penalty. - as there has been an automatic charge created in view of Section 24(2) of the TNGST Act and Section 42 of the TNVAT Act read with Section 9 of the CST Act. The petitioner is directed to execute the personal bond within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 158 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Denial of Input tax credit - Held that:- Respondent issued a notice dated 22.7.2013 stating that on verification of the returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment years through departmental website, it is noticed that mismatching transaction had taken place and that such transaction is proposed to be brought under the taxable net element. When the petitioner has filed their monthly returns/furnishing particulars etc., in consonance with Section 19(10)(a) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax and Rule 10(2) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Rules, 2007 claiming Input Tax Credit as per Section 19(11) of the said Act, the respondent ought not to have directed the petitioner to furnish the proof for payment of tax by the petitioner's seller for the purpose of allowing input tax credit. - issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani - I Assessment Circle, Chennai and another (2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 118 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Invocation of extended period of limitation - Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that:- Had the present case involved the sale of goods to the said Nigams, it may have been a different matter, altogether. It was necessary for the Tribunal, however, to first decide the issue as to whether this case is similar to the other case for it is only in the event of that finding being in the affirmative that the revisional jurisdiction could have been invoked under the second proviso to Section 34. This issue, admittedly, has not been raised much less dealt with in the impugned order. We would have considered deciding this issue ourselves but for the fact that it was suggested that there may be certain other aspects regarding the constitution of these bodies that may also require consideration. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of vehicle - goods are transported from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh without valid records i.e. original invoice copy of the machine - Held that:- Since the original invoice has been held by the bank, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the original invoice. However, the petitioner has produced a copy of the invoice and all other relevant documents to the second respondent. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the Detention Notice issued by the second respondent and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the detention notice, dated 2.5.2015, issued by the second respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP Y 5372 with Hydraulic Excavator within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 81 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Attachment of property - Preferential creditor - Held that:- In the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. The State of Haryana & others [2009 (10) TMI 886 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], income dues were not given any statutory preference - The statutory preference has been given to the tax arrears under the VAT Act. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bank of India's case (2009 (2) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), we find that the claim of the petitioner that it had preference over the tax dues of the borrower of the petitioner, does not merit any acceptance in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the VAT Act. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 80 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Review order - Determination of sale price - "First sale" - Assam Board of Revenue originally held that in view of the explanation 1 of section 8(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act 1993 the sale made by the petitioner cannot be construed as a first sale made by the petitioner to its dealers and is not taxable - Held that:- Quantity of goods sold to the petitioner by the IOC accounts for only 4.5 per cent of its total production, therefore the said quantity cannot be considered as a “a substantial part of the goods manufactured”. When that condition does not apply despite the fact that the sale price collected by the petitioner from its dealers being in excess of the 40 per cent of the purchase price the question of levy of tax does not arise, since one of the requisite conditions viz. “the sale of a substantial part of the goods manufactured” is not fulfilled. Unless both the conditions are fulfilled the question of levy does not arise. In that view of the matter the view taken by the Assam Board of Revenue in review is untenable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - Bonafide belief - Withdrawal of appeals - Clubbing of appeals - Held that:- Contention of the petitioners that they were under bonafide belief that the appeal is still pending stands fortified from the facts narrated hereiabove and from the affidavits placed on record. It is further to be noted that though the petitioners had requested for withdrawal of appeal in part, the Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn in toto. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that the act of Court shall prejudice none. Reliance in this respect shall be placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gursharan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. [1996 (2) TMI 540 - SUPREME COURT]. The Appellate Authority acting under the said Act, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. On account of an error which is committed by a quasi-judicial authority, and which according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, was assured to be corrected by him, but however not corrected by him, a prejudice cannot be permitted to be caused to a litigant who was acting bonafide - petitioners have made out a case of sufficient cause and as such, have made out a case for condonation of delay. However, the same shall be subject to costs which are quantified at ₹ 10,000 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - Cancellation of provisional registration - Held that:- Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit and/or produce the necessary Challans of payment of the aforesaid amount before the respondent No.4 and/or appropriate authority. - It is, therefore, that on deposit of the aforesaid amount, the respondent No.4 may be directed to release the goods detained under memo - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 16 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Explanation (i) to Section 2(1) (zg) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Rule 25 (2) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 - Inclusion of the value of land for charging VAT on developers - Held that:- Following decision in the case of CHD Developers Limited, Karnal Vs The State of Haryana and others [2015 (4) TMI 784 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - Whether the Tribunal has committed an error or not in exercising the powers under Section 62 of the said Act which are analogous to Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax - Held that:- Rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order - Tribunal while deciding the Second Appeal proceeds on a footing that the assessment in question was made under Section 33(3) of the said Act. However, the assessments were made in fact under Section 33(2) of the said Act. It could further be seen that even the lawyer who was representing the petitioner before the learned Tribunal in the rectification application, himself admitted that the original assessments were made under Section 33(2) and not under Section 33(3) of the said Act - Tribunal is very much justified in directing its earlier order to be recalled and directing the appeals to be heard after their restoration in accordance with the basis of accurately recorded facts. No doubt, as held by the Division Bench, the power of recall cannot be resorted to review the order in the garb of rectification. However, if the learned Tribunal has passed the order on the basis of incorrect factual position, the learned Tribunal can very well pass the order after recording the correct factual position. - Decided against assessee.
|
