|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 108 Records
-
2016 (10) TMI 1383
Benefit of the Amnesty Scheme - It was held by Gujarat High Court that It is an admitted position that in the facts of the present case, the petitioners seek the benefit of the Scheme in relation to the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 which are well within the ambit of the Scheme namely, between 1st April, 2006 and 14th October, 2014.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1377
Seeking a direction to the respondents to return the cheques taken from the petitioner during the inspection conducted by the second respondent in the place of business of the petitioner on 19.9.2016 at 6 PM - HELD THAT:- Time and again, this Court held that the officials of the Enforcement Wing cannot collect cheques or even collect tax in the nature of advance tax and this practice has been deprecated and the leading decision on this point is in the case of HOTEL BLUE NILE VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1992 (9) TMI 309 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
The action of the second respondent in retaining the cheques issued by the petitioner is not sustainable - Petition allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1359
Validity of Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - rate of tax - interstate movement of goods - Change in nature of goods merely on the basis of the location in which they are used - It was held by Madras High Court that The challenge to the validity of Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is rejected and the prayer of the writ petitioners for declaration that Section 2(11) is ultra vires and unconstitutional, is dismissed.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the a High Court.
SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1345
Levy of VAT - sale of repossessed cars by assessee/Bank - penalty - HELD THAT:- In identical circumstances this court in its judgment reported as Citi Bank vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2015 (12) TMI 1040 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had ruled against the assessee.
In the present case, levy of penalty is above 150%. The main question of law is answered against the assessee.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1230
Liability of VAT - transaction of sale - section 55 of MVAT ACT, 2002.
Whether the sale of imported goods by the Applicant to the license holders from a customs bonded warehouse (hereinafter referred to as warehouse)is a sale, liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act?
Whether ex-bond sales of imported goods effected to duty free shops is a 'sale in the course of imports' and hence exempt from the levy of tax under Act? Presently, dealer is not effecting this type of transactions?
Whether the Applicant is liable to discharge tax in respect of the above mentioned sales transactions?
Held that:- The sale from warehouse to duty free shop is neither export nor sale in the course of import. Hence, such sale is taxable in the state of Maharashtra at the schedule rate prescribed under MVAT ACT, 2002. The sale to duty free shop cannot be treated as export. It does not have destination where it can be said to be imported, and so long as it does not satisfy this test laid by Hon apex court in the case of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. [1960 (9) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it cannot be said that the sale was in the course of export.
Ruling:- Sale of imported goods by the Applicant to the license holders from a customs bonded warehouse - Held that:- Sale liable to tax as per relevant schedule entry under MVAT Act.
Whether ex-bond sales of imported goods to duty free shops is a 'sale in the course of imports' and hence exempt from the levy of tax under MVAT Act? - Held that:- The exbond sale to duty free shop is neither sale in the course of import nor it is export. Hence, sale to duty Free shop is liable to tax as per schedule entry D-3 appended to MVAT ACT, 2002.
Whether the Applicant is liable to discharge tax in respect of the above mentioned sale transaction? - Held that:- The applicant is not holding any license under State Excise Act (Prohibition Act).Hence, liable to tax as per schedule entry D-3 appended to MVAT ACT, 2002.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1225
Levy of tax - sale by way of export - Section 3(4) of the TNGST Act 1959 - Held that:- In cases where the manufactured goods are sold by way of export, no such transfer of goods can be construed to have taken place outside the State to attract the requirement of payment of additional tax at 1% as provided for in Sub-Section 4 of Section 3 of the Act - In Tube Investments of India Ltd., vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 36 VST 67 (Mad), a Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 3(4) of the Act will have no application to export sales.
The sales effected by the petitioner by way of export sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act would not get attracted - tax case revision allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1208
Maintainability of petition - Reason-ability of Stay allowed by Tribunal - Held that:- The Tribunal has imposed a very reasonable condition. In fact, it has partly allowed the appeals and brought down the amount which is to be deposited. In the circumstances and when the Tribunal has not acted arbitrarily or capriciously nor violated any provisions of law, we cannot entertain these writ petitions. They are dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1206
The Tribunal has partly allowed the appeals and brought down the amount which is to be deposited - when the Tribunal has not acted arbitrarily or capriciously nor violated any provisions of law, we cannot entertain these writ petitions - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1187
Penalty - non-production of Declaration Form ST-18A - the declaration Form ST-18A was not produced on the premise that it was not required - Held that: - Admittedly, the declaration Form ST-18A was not produced at the time of checking of the vehicle and the claim of the petitioner that there was a newspaper report is wholly inapplicable and no cognizance could have been taken on the so called newspaper report or otherwise. Even the claim about newspaper report is bald claim unsupported by any material.
Any news in newspaper reports cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be said to be a bona-fide belief and is a mere explanation without any supporting material and the Tax Board has rightly come to the conclusion that the penalty was appropriate in a case like this. No question of law can be said to emerge.
Petition dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1186
Penalty u/s 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Form VAT-47 - builty alongwith other supporting documents including declaration Form VAT-47 bearing No.1542234 was found completely blank - Rule 53(1) (I) - Held that: - from the order of the Tax Board it was found that though the issue appears to have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner and does find mention at page-2 of the impugned order, however, it appears that the Tax Board while upholding the order of the Dy. Commissioner (A) had merely observed that in view of the Notification dt. 30.03.2000, these being notified goods the declaration Form VAT-47 was required to be carried. However, the contention of the petitioner has been that under Rule 53(1)(i) quoted herein above, there was no necessity of carrying declaration Form VAT-47 which has not been considered by the Tax Board.
Since there was no finding of existing Rule 53 (1) (i) quoted herein above it would be appropriate that let the Tax Board may come to a specific finding about the goods being transported whether in actuality fall within the definition of telecommunication goods and to re-decide the issue afresh.
The matter is remanded back to the Tax Board to re-decide the matter afresh.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1185
Levy of Luxury Tax - Validity of assessment order - penalty - proceedings were taken by the assessing officer alleging escapement of turnover of service tax on the ground that during the period 2004-05 and 2005-06, certain service charges were collected, but tax was not paid - Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 - Held that: - the issue is well covered on a bare reading of the provision itself, which gives a clearly indication that luxury tax can be levied on the services as stated by the assessing officer in Ext.P1 order. It is clear that other than the charges for food and liquor, all other services are liable to be taxed. That apart, the assessee in the bills had clearly indicated that they have collected service charges in addition to the charges for liquor.
There is no deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent in not paying the tax and it had occurred only on account of mistake of the factual circumstances involved in the matter - penalty not leviable.
Petition disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1184
Demand of interest - default or delay in repayment of loan - eligibility certificate for availing benefit of deferment of payment of tax - Rule 28-B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 - Held that: - Rule 28-B of the Rules provided for class of industries, period and other conditions for exemption/ deferment from payment of tax. The operative period was from 1.8.1997 ending on the date on which the policy for incentives to industries is terminated/ revised by the Government of Haryana in Industries Department. The benefits are either for exemption from payment of tax or deferment for payment of tax to eligible industrial units for the period and the extent of amount as mentioned in Sub-Rule 5 thereof. The benefit and time had relevance with the area where the industry was located.
In the case in hand, as the facts are on record, the validity of the eligibility certificate of the petitioner was from 9.9.1997 to 8.9.2006. The total amount of admissible benefit to the petitioner was ₹ 44.68 lacs, out of which ₹ 43,90,396/- was availed of by the petitioner upto 30.6.2000. Thereafter, the plant and machinery was partly sold and partly it was leased out. From 30.6.2000, the unit is not in production. As the petitioner violated the conditions of eligibility certificate, the matter was put up in 92nd meeting of the Higher Level Screening Committee on 16.2.2006 and finding violation of the conditions laid down in Rule 28-B of the Rules, the committee decided to withdraw the eligibility certificate. As a consequence, the petitioner became liable to pay the entire amount of tax, interest and penalty in terms of Rule 28-B (10)(b) of the Rules, as if the benefit of deferment of tax/ exemption was not available to the petitioner.
The benefit of interest free loan could be availed of only by an industrial unit in whose favour eligibility/ entitlement certificate had been issued in terms of the incentive scheme as notified on 17.5.1989 (Rule 28-A of the Rules), however, it is not in dispute that the Scheme was made applicable even to the beneficiaries under Rule 28-B of the Rules. In case a unit is not in possession of the eligibility certificate, he could not claim the benefit of interest free loan under the Scheme. Moment the eligibility certificate is withdrawn, the entire clock has to be put back, namely, that the petitioner availed of certain benefits to which he was not entitled to. The Scheme is not as such independent as it was inter-woven with the Rules 28-A and 28-B of the Rules.
The petitioner having settled the liability of the sale tax department by raising loan from the Industries Department, he would certainly become liable to pay interest at the rate as provided for under the Act for the period the loan amount was utilised by it - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1023
Valuation - discount - whether the discounts received by the assessee much after purchase from the supplier would have to be deemed as turn over as per Explanation VII to Section 2(ii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act or whether it would have to be treated as either a 'cash discount' or 'trade discount'? - Held that: - the assessee has suffered loss and they have received certain amounts from their suppliers, without which the assessee would not have been able to recoup the loss suffered by it. The conditions that are to be present for applying the mandate of Explanation VII to Section 2(ii) thus being obvious from the accounts of the assessee, any explanation to the nature of the amounts received by it, in the absence of specific and' clinching evidence/documents to prove such nature, would be of no avail - the amounts received by the assessee, which they call 'discounts' are, in fact, the amounts that would fall within the ambit of Explanation VII to Section 2(ii) and hence liable to be added to the turnover.
Revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1016
Whether the completion of assessment has to be made within the time stipulated and it was found that there is no warrant for such an interpretation especially since the words employed was 'proceed to determine' which indicated only a proceeding to be initiated and not the assessment itself completed? -
Held that: - the statute provides for self assessment and the provision for assessment of escaped turnover specifically provides a limitation of five years within which the proceedings to determine the escaped turnover had to be initiated. The power of extension conferred on the Deputy Commissioner was with respect to the completion of assessment, which has no relevance to the initiation of the proceedings as such. In such circumstance, Section 25B of the K.V.A.T. Act has to be held to be redundant insofar as the period provided under Section 25(1). Obviously, it is a mistake occurred in drafting which, however, being explicit and clear and not being in any manner ambiguous, would not be open for any purposive interpretation by this Court. The Government would be advised to look into the said provision and make suitable amendments. The amendments, if so made, definitely would not revive the cause of action in the present case; where a right has accrued and the liability to reassessment having been extinguished.
The Assessing Officer would issue fresh orders of assessment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment only dealing with the specific instances of escaped turnover taken up in Exts.P1 and P2 - petition allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1015
Imposition of penalty u/s 48 (5) of the Act - the goods had been purchased from a dealer in Kanpur and had been despatched for sale to a dealer situate at Jaunpur. It was further sought to be explained that since the Jaunpur dealer did not accept the goods, they were, subsequent to their release, sold to another dealer on 18 July 2011 - discrepancy in the weight of goods - whether the circumstances which weighed with and were relied upon by the assessing authority would justify the imposition of penalty under Section 48 (5) of the Act? - Held that: - neither the assessing authority nor for that matter the Tribunal has entered any finding as to whether the goods which were seized were actually accounted for in the books of accounts of the dealer or not. The assessing authority, as noted above, primarily rested his order on the various discrepancies which according to him came to light from the explanation put forth by the dealer and the statement of the driver who was accompanying the vehicle. In the opinion of this Court, these discrepancies would not of their own and standing alone satisfy the enquiry which the authority is liable to undertake in order to sustain the levy of penalty under Section 48 (5) of the 2008 Act - this Court is of the considered view that the matter would merit a remand for fresh consideration by the assessing authority - revision allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1012
Review application - judgement of The Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow Versus S/S. Sri Supreme Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 578 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], sought for revision on the issue that no seizure can be effected in no mans land - Held that: - In the opinion of this Court, the same does not qualify as a ground for review inasmuch as the proposition in respect of which Sri Gupta relies upon the judgment was duly noted. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any observation in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Panch Kanya Road Carriers which may support the contention so advanced by Sri Gupta - application rejected.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1010
Imposition of penalty u/s 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - excess physical stock found, than what was recorded in books - the stock of Namkeen on spot verification was 6422 kg whereas in the books it was weighted at 3892 kg only and, therefore, there was excess stock of 2530 kg - Held that: - the assessee failed to discharge the onus immediately as soon as the survey took place and the onus as noticed earlier was to bring to the notice of the higher officials of the Revenue, if something wrong happened in the survey proceedings and such having not been brought, the onus has not been discharged.
It is settled law that once the officer conducting survey on the basis of the very own statements of the respondent assessee having accepted the guilt/charge, having accepted about the excess stock and has no explanation to offer, it may not be proper for the court to enter upon merits of the controversy at all and unless it is demonstrated that the penalty proceedings initiated and imposed, is mala fide, perverse, based on no evidence, misreading of evidence or which a reasonable man could not form or that the person concerned was not given due opportunity, resulting in prejudice, said proceedings need no interference.
Penalty upheld - petition allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1009
Survey - Non accounted stock - Evasion of tax - Penalty - Held that: -On analysing the statements, it clearly proves that a reasonable chance of hearing was given by the AO to the assessee to explain the unrecorded/unaccounted stock found of 90 cartons Pack Chain (Zip) but the assessee gave statement on oath which has been analysed. There is no occasion to say that these statements were given under pressure or on account of coercion. Mere saying is not sufficient that too before the Appellate Authorities - If the assessee had to retract/resile with the so-called statements recorded at the time of survey on oath, the assessee ought to have informed the higher officials by an affidavit or/and other acceptable evidence about coercion/pressure tactics having been inflicted on the assessee at the time of survey - Decided against the assessee.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1002
Recognition certificate holder u/s 8-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Section 4-B of the Act - purchases of raw material at the concessional rate of tax against Form III-B - purchases of natural gas against Form III-B at the concessional rate of tax, and manufacture of the notified goods, fertilizers, transferred outside the State of Uttar Pradesh - Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal were legally justified in granting the exemption on purchase of raw material against Form III-B whereas the dealer has made a stock transfer of finished goods which is not permissible under law?
Held that: - Sub-section (2) to Section 4-B requires that the notified goods should be “intended” to be sold by the dealer within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of exports out of India. The expression “intended” is significant and important. It refers to the intention of the dealer after the goods are manufactured and packed. The expression “in the course inter-State trade or commerce” is quite broad and wide. An issue may arise as to whether the stock transfer outside the State in terms of directions issued by the Central Government can be considered as sale or transaction in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
Sub-section (6) is a specific provision which deals with the case of the dealer who has been issued the recognition certificate and has purchased goods without payment of tax or at concessional rates, but has sold the manufactured goods or packaged goods otherwise than by way of sale in the State, or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or export out of India. The provision specifically deals with cases where the dealer manufactures or packs the notified goods and has taken benefit of lower/concessional or nil rate of tax on the raw material but is unable to fulfill the intendment, i.e., he has not been able to sell the notified goods by way of sale within the State or in course of inter-State state or commerce or by way of export. In such cases, the dealer is liable to pay the amount of difference on the amount of sale or purchase of such goods on which concession or nil rate of tax was paid on account of issue of the requirement certificate and the amount of tax calculated @ 4%. The sub-section is a particular and a specific section which deals with and specifies the consequences when the dealer is unable to meet and comply with intendment. The sub-section (6) would, thus, be applicable.
Section 3-B undoubtedly commences with a non-obstante clause, but the provision has to be read harmoniously with sub-section (6) to Section 4-B. Any other interpretation would make sub-section (6) a dead letter, for if we accept the plea of the Revenue whenever there is violation or failure to abide with the “intendment”, Section 3-B would be invoked and applied, not sub-section(6) to Section 4-B. Section 3-B would apply when a false and wrong certificate or declaration is made. Sub-section (6) on the other hand, deals with cases where the dealer is unable to comply with the intendment, i.e., for some reason he is unable to sell the goods within the State, export them or sell them in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Intendment of the said nature has not been treated as false or wrong declaration as consequences have been prescribed in sub-section (6). It is essential to be stated that consistency and certainty in tax matters is necessary. In cases relating to “Indirect Taxation”, this principle is even more important. Clarity in this regard is a necessity and the interpretative vision should be same.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1001
Validity of order of assessment - large tax payers unit - dealer who falls within the jurisdiction of a 'large tax payers unit' has been dealt with in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in the matter of production of C-Forms - Held that: - this Court is of the view that the assessment should be redone and the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, moreso, when the petitioner would now take a stand that they have received C-Forms from their clients who are all registered dealers. In the impugned order, the respondent has not disputed the fact that the petitioner's clients are registered dealers in other States. Further, the petitioner has questioned the formula which has been adopted for reversal of the Input Tax Credit. Adequate opportunity having not been granted to the petitioner, the impugned order is held to be in violation of principles of natural justice - Writ Petition allowed - the impugned order set aside - matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing, after receiving the C-Forms that may be produced by the petitioner and redo the assessment in accordance with law.
........
|
