|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 96 of 96 Records
-
2016 (1) TMI 141
Works contract service - TDS - Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Held that:- Court after perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive reply raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before respondent No.3 who shall decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the reply. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate its claim before the concerned authority. It is further directed that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of refund, the same be paid to the petitioner - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 140
Whether the revenue authorities could treat the transaction in question to be that of inter-State sale when a branch office of Lucky Laboratories is said to have obtained the goods from Ghaziabad and has claimed to have sold the goods to the appellant within the State of Bihar - Held that:- Question of mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act raised on behalf of the appellant has been considered in detail with reference to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal as also the decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also noted the consideration of the same in the original order dated 1.3.1995 passed in revision as also in the review judgment dated 7.9.1999 stating that the case laws reported in [1996 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] were discussed in detail and the applicability of the ratios decided in these cases and came to the conclusion that the case laws cited do not help the petitioner and accordingly it was of the firm view that the Tribunal did not overlook the mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act and has rightly opined that if M/s. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. had paid any tax treating its transaction as inter-State transaction it can seek redressal in proper forum according to law. - A review by its very nature has a limited scope and it is not that the reviewing authority sits in appeal over the order passed earlier. - fresh substantial question of law sought to be raised by the appellant has any substance in it. - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 91
Demand of VAT - export against form H - rectification of error denied - appellant had sold the car but did not include its value in the returns nor deposited the tax on the sale of fixed assets - Even export sales shown by the appellant were not genuine, because as per documents, the appellant had sold the goods on 25.11.2005 which were dispatched to foreign buyers by the exporters to whom the sale were made against 'H' Forms on 12.12.2005, whereas as per bill of lading, the goods were dispatched on 11.6.2006 i.e. in the next year - failure to explain and produce evidence including purchase vouchers in support of its ITC claim - Held that:- When the appellant filed an application for rectification of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.2012 dismissing its appeal, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal should have afforded an opportunity to the appellant to put forward its case. - Matter remanded back. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 90
Maintainability of appeals - 42 (4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Held that:- Revision Petition filed by the Revenue has become infructuous, since the main appeal filed by the respondent-Assessee before the learned Tax Board has since been decided. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 89
Levy of tax under the TNVAT Act, 2006 - difference in sales turn over of dry motor mix and clinker as mentioned in Annual Report of the petitioner Company and the turn over reported by the petitioner in its monthly returns under the TNVAT Act,2006 - Held that:- Petitioner contended that they have already collected all the manual copies of returns filed before the other States. Hence, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition and remit the matter back to the authorities concerned for passing appropriate order. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to produce all the manual copies of returns to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 88
Detention of consignment - Held that:- The goods were detained on the assumption that, the consignment comprised of goods that had evaded CST, and therefore, there was a possibility of evasion of tax in Kerala as well. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, it is not in dispute that, the consignee in Kerala had produced Form 16 declaration stating that the goods were purchased for the own use of the consignee and this has not been disbelieved by the respondent. It is also pointed out that, the liability to pay CST, if any, could arise only in the State of Tamilnadu and not in the State of Kerala. - I direct the respondent to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner, on the petitioner furnishing a simple bond without surety for the security deposit - respondent shall thereafter transmit the files to the adjudicating authority who shall adjudicate the matter and pass orders, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by the observations in this judgment - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 50
Detention of goods - Compounding fees - Held that:- Goods were accompanied by form JJ describing the nature of movement is for processing by the supplier and the delivery challan also contained the reason for the movement namely return of goods. The quantity of the goods and the approximate value of the goods and the nature of goods were clearly mentioned in the form JJ and the delivery challan. The address of the consignor and the address of the consignee was also clearly mentioned in the form JJ and the delivery challan and since, the goods are supported by form JJ.No.737 dated 30.09.2015 along with Delivery Challan No.008 dated 30.09.2015 and the goods were returned back to the seller only for the purpose of processing, the petitioner has not committed any violation as stated by the first respondent. - since the second respondent being the Assessing Authority also made as a party here, it is always open to the second respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if any violation found out and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. When such being position, there is no justifiable reason for detaining the goods in the check post. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to release the goods forth with. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 49
Recovery of tax when the appeal is pending before the appellate authority - deposit of 50% dues followed by Bank guarantee - Penalty - Held that:- Petitioner has paid 25% of the disputed tax for the respective assessment years at the time of filing the appeals. Further, as directed by the Appellate authority, the petitioner also made payment of another 25% of the disputed amount. The petitioner has also furnished bank guarantees for the balance tax amount and penalty wherever applicable for all the assessment years. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the extension of stay petitions filed by the petitioner were not heard. In the meantime, on 08.10.2015, the 1st respondent herein issued a notice directing the petitioner to produce stay orders, in the absence of which, recovery action will be initiated. Since the revenue of the department is very much safeguarded by remitting 50% of the disputed tax for all the assessment years as well as furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining 50% of the disputed tax and penalty wherever applicable, which are still in force, this Court is of the view that the appeals are to be disposed of within a stipulated time and the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals. - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 48
Cancellation of registration certificate - petitioner firm filed incorrect returns declaring taxable turnover as exempted turnover - Held that:- Before passing the impugned orders of assessment, the objection letter as furnished by the petitioner on 13.01.2015 and received by the authority on 18.01.2015, has not been considered by the assessing officer. The specific prayer made by the petitioner with regard to supply of certain copies of documents was also turned down by the officer concerned and no such reference is made in the impugned order. - Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondent would, on instructions, fairly submit that though the objection dated 13.01.2015 was received from the petitioner by the respondent, inadvertently, the same was not considered by him. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 47
Stay application - short payment of VAT - imported goods were held to be not accounted for - Held that:- We do not find that the Tribunal's order raises any substantial question of law. The discretion has been exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The principles which are laid down in the decision of M/s Banara Valves Ltd. have been thus applied. If the order passed by the Tribunal is discretionary and it has adverted to necessary and requisite materials, then, we do not find that it has in any manner brushed aside the legal principles. Whether the assessment made by the Assessing Officer is correct or not will have to be decided by the 1st Appellate Authority at the hearing of the Appeal. The Appellant will get opportunity to place relevant facts, figures and materials before the Authority at that time. However, there can not be and in the peculiar facts and circumstances an unconditional stay of recovery of taxes. That is how the rights and equities have been balanced by the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 46
Revision of assessment - Best Judgment assessment - Section 22(6) - Held that:- As seen from the best of judgment order as well as the impugned order, there were 8 discrepancies pointed out. Out of them, the appellant/ assessee has chosen to admit their liability in respect of three items. In respect of three other items, the Assessing Officer granted relief in favour of the assessee. Hence, what was left behind was only two issues out of the total of six. - The appellant claims that they have the books of accounts and proof. Therefore, we are of the considered view that by granting one opportunity to the appellant to produce the records before the Assessing Officer upon the payment of some portion of the tax demanded, ends of justice will be met. - Appeal disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 45
Revision of assessment orders - Bar of limitation - revision of the assessment year 2007-08 was issued after the expiry of more than seven years - Held that:- Petitioner(s) on receipt of the notice had filed the writ petitions in this Court challenging the same to be without jurisdiction. In some of the cases, the petitioner(s) had neither filed any objection/reply to the said notice nor raised the pleas as have been raised in the instant writ petitions before the competent authority. - there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the notice 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 - Petition disposed of.
-
2016 (1) TMI 6
Constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 - Interpretation - determination of purchase price - valuation - inclusion of expenses - the amendments were carried out from 1st October, 1995 to change the structure of taxation - Held that:- On a reading of the provisions together and harmoniously, we are not in agreement with Mr. Joshi that the tax is on expenses or expenditure and not on purchase of sugarcane. The above provisions have been minutely referred by us together with those enabling recovery of tax. There is a inherent fallacy in the submission of the Petitioners that components which are not germane or relevant to the purchase of sugarcane and the price paid therefor are taken into consideration by the legislature. It is apparent that the term "purchase price" is defined in such a way as to include amounts mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of section 2(f-b) of the Act of 1962. Once it is apparent that the components or elements stated therein go into fixation of purchase price and that is the measure for computation of the tax, then, depending upon facts and circumstances in each case, the occupier can point out that not all components or elements are included in the purchase price in his case. That it is only the actual costs which have been taken into account or that they have not included all the heads simply because not all of them form part of the purchase price.
Then, it would be open for the Assessing Officer/Commissioner to consider such pleas and material in support thereof. He would, then, compute the tax liability after duly considering them. However, it is the turnover of purchases meaning the aggregate of the amounts of purchase price paid and payable by an occupier, on which tax is levied and collected. The turnover is computed on the basis of the purchase transactions and the price paid for the same. Thus, it would be open for the Petitioners to point out that the turnover of purchases in their case involves payment of purchase price without the elements that are set out in the definition of the term "purchase price" referred above.
The computation of the purchase price is indicated so that the tax to be levied and collected is correctly computed. If sum total of the purchases would constitute the turnover and the measure of that would be the amount of purchase price paid and payable by an occupier during the given period, then, it is only to enable the assessment and collection of tax in accordance with law that these provisions have been inserted. Thus, we are in complete agreement with Mr. Sonpal on the legality and validity of the tax. It is not unconstitutional and ultra vires as alleged.
Decided against the appellants/ assessee.
-
2016 (1) TMI 5
Violation of the provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - inclusion of value of land in taxable turnover of builders/developers selling flats/apartments/units and paying VAT under lumpsum scheme - Held that:- It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the impugned order dated 14.8.2015 passed by respondent No.3 is an appealable order. Accordingly, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain the writ petitions at this stage. - Writ petition not maintainable - the writ petitions are disposed of by relegating the petitioner(s) to the alternative remedy of appeal.
-
2016 (1) TMI 4
Adjustment of input tax credit - Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in permitting adjustment of input tax credit arising from Value Added Tax Act to the Central Sales Tax Act - Held that:- in the case of the assessee, while resorting to the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Act, the Assessing Officer reduced from the input tax credit 4% of branch transfer and once again reduced input tax credit on purchases of fuel to the extent of 4%. This Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2014 (2) TMI 815 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), on similar facts, held that from the provisions of sub-section-(3)(b) of Section 11, it is clear that reduction of tax credit had to be applied to any case which satisfies the description contained in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) not every time such description is satisfied. Further, reduction of amount of tax at the rate of 4 per cent is to be done for the taxable goods which fall in any of the three categories contained in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) and not every time a particular class of goods specified fall in more than one categories. Thus, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case and hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity, warranting interference. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (1) TMI 3
Seizure of truck with goods - Assistant Government Pleader by submitting that the petitioner is only a transporter and that the owner of the goods in question has not come forth and that the respondents apprehend that the owner may not cooperate in the proceedings which may be taken by the respondent authorities - Held that:- Interest of justice would be served if the petitioner’s truck alongwith goods are released, subject to the petitioner depositing the tax amount at the rate of 15% of the value of the goods in question as assessed by the respondents which comes to ₹ 1,50,000/-. Upon such amount being paid, the respondents shall forthwith release the vehicle in question alongwith the goods, without prejudice to any action that may be initiated by the respondents against the owner of the goods in question under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act. Furthermore, with a view to verify as to whether the goods actually leave the State of Gujarat, the respondent authorities may verify with the Bhilad checkpost at the time when the vehicle in question leaves the border of Gujarat and enters into Maharashtra. It is clarified that the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- that would be deposited by the petitioner would be subject to ultimate outcome of the proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents. In case no proceedings are initiated, it would be open for the petitioner to seek refund of the said amount. - Appeal disposed of.
|
