|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 96 Records
-
2016 (1) TMI 830
Refund of tax paid - Interstate sale or stock transfer - release of the bank guarantee - According to the petitioner, the goods were directly dispatched to its depots located in the State of U.P. and that the goods did not move in pursuance of any pre-determined contract or sale. - Held that:- until and unless there is an adjudication and an authority finds that the amount is refundable, no amount can be refunded to the petitioner at this stage since we find that the assessment proceedings are still pending before the Assessing Officer. - the prayer for refund of the disputed tax pursuant to the setting aside of the assessment order cannot be granted to the petitioner at this stage. - Decided against the assessee.
Release of the bank guarantee - Held that:- once the assessment order is set aside by the Appellate Authority, the security relating to the demand comes to an end. Once the assessment order is set aside, there is no requirement for the assessee to continue to furnish security or in the instant case, the bank guarantee. - In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned notice dated 15.12.2015 directing the petitioner to extend the bank guarantee can not be sustained and is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get its bank guarantee released. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 829
VAT assessment - AO disallowed the claim of sales return and imposed the tax on the ground that all the transactions were made prior to the date of VAT audit and the dealers have not produced the details before the Enforcement Wing Officials. - Held that:- Admittedly, according to the petitioner, the entire documents are very much available with the petitioner. Simply, for the reason that those documents had not been produced before the Enforcement Wing Officials, the respondent cannot deny to accept those documents for perusal. Hence, for this reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders. - Matter remanded back.
-
2016 (1) TMI 673
Non production of 'C' Form / 'F' Form or discrepancies therein - disallowance of concessional rate for non-filing of the relevant statutory forms with regard to Interstate Sale, branch transfer and consignment sale - Held that:- While passing orders on the said application, with regard to 'C' form as well as the eligibility of the petitioner under sales return, the respondent without adducing appropriate reasons has stated that the judgment cited in the case is not applicable to the case, since the facts in that case and the case of the petitioner are not similar. Further the defects pointed out by the respondent in the impugned proceedings are nothing, but ineligibility of concessional rate of tax on certain turnover due to defective forms which are to be corrected and counter signed by the authority who issued and the same was done subsequently. So there cannot be any justifiable reason to reject the application under section 84 of TNVAT Act, that too, without any opportunity.
Matter is remitted back to the assessing authority/respondent for passing orders afresh.
-
2016 (1) TMI 623
Detention of consignments - not obtaining a transit pass under TNVAT - goods which are imported from a foreign country and bound to be transported SEZ unit outside the State - The raw materials which are purchased on high seas and cleared through Chennai harbour are used in the manufacture of transformer tank, power and energy sector equipments and exported - Held that:- At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay the actual tax to be paid for the purpose of release of goods and on such payment, the goods detained may be directed to be released.
The petitioner is willing to pay one time tax and in order to give a quietus to the issue, for the purpose of release of goods, without prejudice to their right to agitate the issue with respect to tax as well as compounding fee before the assessing authority or the revisional authority in the manner known to law, on payment of one time tax viz., ₹ 5,70,000/-by the petitioner, the respondents, shall release the consignments in question forthwith. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 586
Condonation of inordinate delay of 1298 days in filing the appeal - revenue appeal - Power of the Checking Officer to decide the nature of transactions at hand - Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that:- The narration of cause for claiming condonation of delay in filing the present appeal does not satisfy the test of “sufficient cause” so as to entitle the State for condonation of inordinate delay of 1298 days in filing the appeal. Narration of above facts shows that the State was not serious in pursuing the litigation. The State should be more vigilant and serious in pursuing the litigation. It is very surprising and astonishing that it has taken such a long time for the decision making process for filing the appeal. The State must ensure in future that the matter is expedited and the responsibility is fixed on the officer/official dealing with the filing of the appeals in case any delay occurs on their part. Since no sufficient cause has been shown in the present case, no ground for condonation of delay is made out. - Decided against the revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 550
Detention of trucks on the premise that the trucks were carrying beetlenuts which the authorities believed was for sale in the State of Gujarat. Since no tax was paid, the goods alongwith trucks have been seized. - petitioner submitted that the goods were in transit through the State for sale at Div and that, therefore, would not invite any duty. - Held that:- Upon the petitioner depositing the sum of ₹ 65,000/- lacs for each truck and further providing security to the extent of 25% thereof, the trucks and the goods shall be released. The respondents shall initiate the proceedings for assessment of tax as early as possible and complete the same preferably by 31.03.2016.
-
2016 (1) TMI 549
Validity of order passed where the petitioner did not produce the books of accounts - revenue submitted that while issuing notices dated 17.07.2015, the first respondent specifically directed the petitioner to produce the books of accounts. However, without complying with the said direction, the petitioner requested an opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, finding no other option, the first respondent passed the impugned assessment orders for the years in question.
Held that:- since the petitioner is involved in the business of works contract, it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to verify all the books of accounts before finalising the assessment. After elaborate contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit the entire records as required to the authority concerned within the time frame fixed by this court. - in order to provide yet another opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned assessment orders set aside - matter remanded back.
-
2016 (1) TMI 509
Rectification of error apparent on the face of the orders of revised assessment - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT) - scope and jurisdiction of the first respondent, while exercising powers u/s 84 - Held that:- the power of the first respondent under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is neither limited nor circumscribed as understood by the first respondent in the impugned orders. As pointed out by the Honourable Division Bench, an order passed contrary to the provisions of the statute or the judgments of the High Court or the Supreme Court, which are covered on the issue and binding on the Authorities, when not considered or when the factual aspect has not been correctly stated, a mistake would occur on the face of the record.
It has to be undoubtedly held that the impugned orders do not address the real issue and that the finding rendered by the first respondent in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned orders is not legally tenable. One more error, which is apparent on the face of the orders passed by the first respondent, is that there is no endeavour made by the third respondent to examine as to whether the error sought to be pointed out by the petitioner was an error apparent on the face of the records. However, being guided by the principle that only the arithmetical and clerical errors could be corrected, the first respondent rejected the petitions under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Hence, the impugned orders call for interference on this technical ground.
The writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - matter remanded back - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 508
Eligibility to pay VAT on works contract at compounded rates - Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) - As per the provisions of Section 8(a)(i) of the KVAT Act, as it stood on 1.4.2005, any works contractor who was not an importer or a dealer effecting first taxable sale in the State could, at his option, instead of paying tax in accordance with the provisions of the said section, pay tax at 2% of the whole contract amount. - Effect of subsequent amendment - Held that:- The amendment to Section 8(a)(i) having come into force in the middle of the assessment year, and it being almost impossible on account of the statutory provisions of Section 7(5) of the CST Act, to get a cancellation of the certificate of registration issued to them under the CST Act in 2005-06 itself, it would be unfair on the part of the respondents to insist on the higher rate of compounded tax under Section 8(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act being paid by the petitioners on the works contracts executed by them. The orders of penalty imposed on the petitioners on this ground also cannot be legally sustained. - Demand of differential tax and penalty set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
Regarding the petitioners could have applied for a surrender of their certificate of registration under the CST Act during the assessment year 2005-06 itself, for reasons best known to them, did not choose to apply for a cancellation of the CST registration before the commencement of the assessment year 2006- 07 - Held that:- petitioners had ample time during the assessment year 2005-06 itself to ensure that they were duly qualified for exercising their option under Section 8(a)(i) for the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioners having not chosen to do so, and having opted for payment of tax at the lower rate of compounded tax under Section 8 (a)(i), when they were not entitled for the same, the orders impugned in these writ petitions, where the Assessing officers find that the petitioners are not entitled to the rate of tax under Section 8(a)(i) of the KVAT Act, cannot be said to be illegal - Decided against the assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 507
Interstate sale and stock transfer - Assistant commissioner (CT), Kerala revealed that the petitioner had not declared the transaction details in Form 8F in respect of a large number of consignments at the border check posts at Kerala which leads to a suspicion on the stock transfers effected from Chennai to Kerala. Therefore, the 5th respondent proposed to revoke exemption allowed on the entire stock transfer of ₹ 91,02,94,770/- and levy tax at 5% treating them as outright interstate sales. - TNVAT - Held that:- The issue of stock transfer and sufferance of taxes are to be proved by documents only. Hence, to give quietus to the issue, this court is of the view that yet another opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner.
Hence, the impugned order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent for passing orders afresh. The petitioner is permitted to produce all the stock transfer related documents, check post partaiculars and the details of payments made in respect of the assessments completed by the Kerala authorities, along with tax payment certificates related to the year 2012-13 - Matter remanded back.
-
2016 (1) TMI 470
Detention of goods - driver of the vehicle has handed over some wrong invoice pertaining to some other goods of the respondent due to inadvertence - Held that:- Admittedly, the goods are detained from 16.09.2015. Till date, tax has not been quantified. Hence, for the purpose of release of goods, the respondent is directed to quantify the tax to be paid by the petitioner and intimate the same to the petitioner within a period of one week from today and on such payment being made by the petitioner, the goods detained are directed to be released forthwith. As far as the compounding fee is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to adjudicate the same in the manner known to law. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 469
Waiver of pre-deposit - the condition under Section 62 (5) of the PVAT Act requiring pre-deposit of 25% of the tax, interest and penalty assessed additionally. No authority under the Act has been empowered to waive off the condition even in cases where the petitioner is unable to make the payment due to real hardship - Held that:- writ petition has been filed without even filing an appeal. In such a situation, the requirement of deposit of 25% of the amount as a pre-condition under Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act for hearing the appeal before the first appellate authority does not apply. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that it shall be open for the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of assessment in accordance with the provisions of the PVAT Act and also an application for interim protection/injunction from the requirement of pre-deposit of 25% of the amount - Decided against the assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 468
Benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of inputs as Special Economic Zone Developer - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT) - Held that:- Respondent-assessee is a developer of Special Economic Zone at Rachenahalli as per the permission granted by the Government of India. As per the policy of the Government of India, the assessee is eligible for refund of tax paid on purchases from the local dealers for the purpose of development, operation or maintenance of the processing area in a Special Economic Zone. In order to give the said benefit to those SEZ developers, sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the KVAT Act has been inserted to the Act, by Act No.6/2007 and Rule 130A has been inserted vide notification dated 26-07-2007, which was given effect to from 01-04-2007.
There is some delay in claiming refund of input tax because of many reasons. The refund of input tax cannot be denied on the ground of belated claim. A reading of Section 20(2), which is a beneficial legislation, makes it very clear that the developer of Special Economic Zone or an Unit located in any Special Economic Zone is entitled for the refund of input tax credit or deduction from the output tax payable by such dealer. Section 20(2) does not contemplate any period within which, such developer shall claim refund of input tax. Further, Rule 130A which was inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2007 also does not contemplate the period within which the developer shall claim the refund of input tax. Section 35 cannot control Section 20(2). The benefit of beneficial legislation has to be extended to the SEZ dealers. The technicalities shall not come in the way of giving some reliefs. Hence, Section 20(2) has a over-riding effect against Section 35 of the Act. The Tribunal, after examining the matter, has given the relief. We find no infirmity or irregularity in the said find. - assessee is entitled for refund of input tax credit. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the same. The substantial questions of law framed are held against the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 467
Eligibility for exemption subject to the proof of certificate - concessional rate of tax - Held that:- Yet another opportunity may be given to the petitioner with respect to the claim of production of declaration forms alone, this Court is inclined to grant sufficient time to the petitioner for production of C forms. - by quashing the impugned orders dated 07.09.2015, this Court permits the petitioner to file C declaration forms before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such production, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 424
Challenge to the notice threatening to lock Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the petitioner under Rule 51 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005 - trading and milling of paddy - Held that:- Perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.4 to take a decision on the reply dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) and Form VAT-29 and indemnity bond (Annexure P-3 Colly), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order before proceeding further against the petitioner, if required, in the matter.
-
2016 (1) TMI 423
Refund claim - Finalization of provisional assessment - Held that:- Refund has already been made to the petitioner(s). Further, it is the admitted position that the order dated 11.5.2015 passed by the assessing authority is appealable. It is directed that in case an appeal is filed by the petitioner(s) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be decided by the appellate authority on merits, in accordance with law and shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation - Regarding interest, liberty is granted to the petitioner(s) to move a representation and in case any representation is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority within six weeks thereafter. It is further directed that in case it is found that the petitioner(s) is/are entitled to the amount of interest, the same be paid to them within next two weeks. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 422
Revisional proceedings - Bar of limitation - Quashing of SCN - Held that:- we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the notices under challenge. However, we clarify that the proper course of action for the noticee is to file detailed and comprehensive objection/reply and to raise all the pleas as have been raised in the writ petitions. In case any objection/reply is filed by the petitioner(s) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the revisional authority shall decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the objection/reply in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) and by passing a speaking order before proceeding further in the matter. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 380
Whether the appellant is entitled to produce the STDIV declaration and ST-14B Forms, even before the appellate authority - Held that:- Petitioner therein is entitled to produce the tax invoices, Forms VAT C-4 and Forms VAT D-1 before the Assessing Authority who thereafter has to determine the tax liability by deciding the matter by passing a fresh order in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to produce the STD-IV declaration and ST-14B Forms before the Assessing Authority who shall thereafter examine the tax liability and decide the matter by passing a fresh order, in accordance with law
Whether the amount of purchase tax can be demanded from the appellant under Rule 28B(3)(j) of the Rules especially when it had been granted exemption from payment of tax - held that:- A plain reading of Rule 28B(3)(j) of the Rules clearly spells out that the beneficiary unit is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax on the sale of finished products and not exemption from the payment of purchase tax. In other words, the unit is entitled to exemption from the payment of sales tax only on the sale of goods manufactured by it and any purchase tax leviable was recoverable from the said unit. Thus, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notional tax liability calculated for the purposes of setting off against the tax exemption limit shall be the amount of tax payable on the sale of furnished products under the Local Sales Tax Law and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which does not include purchase tax and, therefore, the amount of purchase tax levied was recoverable from the appellant. - No illegality or perversity could be demonstrated in the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal which may call for interference by this Court on this question - Appeal disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 379
Waiver of pre deposit - Reduction of the amount of bank guarantee requirement to 20% of tax demand - Held that:- As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the learned Government Representative has not objected to the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent for directing the first appellate authority to decide the appeal in view of the deposit of 5% of the tax demand and furnishing of bank guarantee for 20% of the tax demand. Therefore, the Tribunal does not appear to have assigned any reasons for reducing the amount of pre-deposit. As regards the contention that the Tribunal has not examined the facts of the case from the aspect of financial hardship, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, subsection (3) of section 73 of the Act does not contemplate financial hardship as one of the factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of waiver of pre-deposit - it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity giving rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law as proposed or otherwise. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 378
Validity of impugned order - Opportunity of hearing not granted - Held that:- Documents produced by the petitioner would show that reply was submitted before the office of the 1st respondent only on 04.09.2015. By this time however, the 1st respondent had already passed assessment order, as also issued the notice of demand. Considering the fact that the petitioner had almost two weeks time after the submission of reply and before the 1st respondent passed order, to produce the books of accounts, in order to substantiate his contentions in reply, I am of the view that order of the 1st respondent cannot be faulted on the ground that it was passed in violation of Rules of Natural Justice. The petitioner having chosen not to produce his books of accounts for perusal by the 1st respondent before the assessment, cannot be heard to complain of a violation of the Rules of Natural Justice while passing order - Decided against assessee.
|
