|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 108 of 108 Records
-
2016 (10) TMI 78
Provisional release of goods - seizure of goods and trucks transported - machinery transported from Jaisalmer to Amreli - declaration in Form No. 403 - will the provisional release of goods be allowed, on non-declaration of form. 403, keeping in view the costly and sophisticated nature of machinery? - Held that: - No useful purpose would be served in allowing the machinery and the vehicles to remain idle in open at Tharad since 14.08.2016. Subject to appropriate conditions which would also safeguard the interest of the authorities, the goods released for further movement - The petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 50 lacs with the State authorities subject to final assessment and further right of appeal - The petitioner shall give an undertaking to cooperate with such assessment proceedings and to pay any further tax, interest or penalty, if found finally due and payable pursuant to such orders of assessment subject to further appeal - assessment not to be delayed unreasonably by the authorities - goods and trucks released on fulfillment of above conditions - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 77
Partial exemption of sales tax - sales tax rate reduced to 3% on sale of All types of four wheeler and three wheeler, Commercial Motor Vehicles, that is to say Trucks, Buses, Mini Buses and pickup vans and their chassis but excluding Auto rickshaws - notification dated 13.6.1989 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - sale of A.P.I. three wheeler chasis complete with the speedometer, spare wheel rims without tyre and tube with wind screen glass by the respondent - Whether the chasis of three wheeler vehicle sold by the respondent falls within the purview of notification dated 6.4.1989 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958?
Held that: - the Board itself has found that the respondent has not sold auto rickshaw but has sold the chasis of three wheeler and, therefore, the Board itself has answered the aforesaid question in favour of the respondent. If the respondent has sold the chassis of three wheeler vehicle, the same would fall within the purview of notification dated 13.6.1989 - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of respondent.
-
2016 (10) TMI 76
Revision of assessment - powers conferred on the revisional authority under Section 32 of the TNGST Act, 1959 - assessment for the year 1995-96 - no revision of assessment for the said year - the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Court in the case of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Porur Assessment Circle, Chennai and others [2004 (9) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and it was contended that on identical facts, the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the demands.
The subject matter in issue is covered by the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Revenue to await the decision in the case of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited, which is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Writ petition allowed - matters remitted back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration, who shall await the decision of the appeal filed by the Revenue as against the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Court in the case of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited and in the event of action being initiated, the petitioner herein will not be entitled to plead limitation as against such action initiated by the Revenue in the light of the proviso to Section 32 (2) of the Act - decided in favor petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 15
Classification of goods - "Enzymes" - classified under the entry of the chemical under Notification No.1084 dated 25.02.2003, taxable @ 4% - to be treated as an unclassified item liable to tax @ 10% - enzyme treated as chemical or protein? - Held that - An enzyme is in the nature of chemical substance, which acts upon a protein and helps in the process of absorption of food by converting the sugars and starch into energy for the body.
In common parlance also an enzyme is understood to be a catalyst agent, which helps in the break-up of food in the intestines and leads to better digestion. It is well settled in law that while interpreting a classification it is the "word" an "item" as is understood in common parlance, which is to be taken into account. The decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Marico Industries Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1057 - SUPREME COURT] is relied upon.
"Enzyme" a chemical under Notification no.1084 dated 25.02.2003 to be chargeable to tax as chemical @ 4% - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 14
Revision application - denial of the benefit of the provisions of Section 3 F (2) (b) (i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - non-allowance of deductions for sales as central sales under Section 3, 4 & 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act - works contract - movement of goods from Nagpur to Saharanpur - Whether even assuming without admitting that the two contracts entered into between the applicant and IVO Power Engineering Limited can be treated as one indivisible works contract liable to tax under Section 3-F of U.P. Trade Tax Act still in view of Section 3 F (2) (b) (i) of U.P. Trade Tax Act the specific goods having moved from outside the State of U.P. in pursuance of the prior agreement, the value of such amount shall be covered by Section 3F of the Central Sales Tax Act and no tax can be legally imposed?
Whether evidence with regard to the prior purchase orders contracts at Nagpur were there or not? The tribunal remained silent about this evidence and simply records a finding that in fact the assessee was seeking to evade tax and had resorted to a device in the movement of goods simply for the purposes of evading the tax.
Held that: - the Tribunal is unable to show any finding or any ground at all, which lends support to the orders passed by the Tribunal as to why it has not even considered the fact that actually material evidence was there on record to show that the entire process of the movement of goods had started from Nagpur nor has it given any real reason for rejection of inter state nature of transaction and why it did not accept the inter state transaction between Nagpur and Saharanpur - the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal after examining the material evidence on record as referred to in paragraphs no.13, 14 & 15 of the memo of appeal before the first appellate authority - matter remanded - revision disposed off - decided in favor of revisionist.
-
2016 (10) TMI 13
Input Tax Credit - discount/incentive received - sale of goods at a rate lower than the price shown in the VAT invoice - same self question decided by the court already - Held that: - once this Court has already taken a view on the self same controversy by various judgments, and particularly when SLP has been dismissed by the apex court, this court is not inclined to take a different view than what has already been taken, particularly when no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Merely because the Kerala High Court has taken a different view, is no good reason to come to a different conclusion - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 12
Imposition of penalty - vehicle carrying jaggary - goods moved from Delhi to MP - registration of parties with the Delhi Sales Tax Authority/Departments - Held that: - There may be some discrepancy/deficiency in the Bills/Vouchers but the facts remains that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Mansore (MP) and it was proved on the basis of the Bills and vouchers and Builty etc. which was produced by the incharge/driver of the Vehicle. The decision in the case of ACTO., Ward-I, Rajasmand Versus White Marble House [2005 (11) TMI 444 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has been relied upon.
Merely doubting and coming to abrupt finding sitting in the office at least in the facts found was not required. Once the owner appeared and contended that the goods were intended for MP, the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and no error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference by the Court.
Revision petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 11
Reassessment under Section 29(7) of Act, 2008 - change of opinion - Eligibility Certificate under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - tax exemption for a period of ten years from 15.04.1999 to 14.04.1999 for ₹ 107,58,99,224/- - modification in Eligibility Certificate - U.P. Act, 1948 was abolished on 31.12.2007 and U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 came into force with effect from 01.01.2008 - Rule 70(9) relied by respondent substituted on 28.02.2010 by U.P. Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 published in the Notification dated 04.02.2010 - Whether here is a case of change of opinion so as to deny permission for reassessment under Section 29(7)? - Held that: - the decision in the case of ALA Firm Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [1991 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] is relied upon, where it was held that If a conscious application of mind is made to the relevant facts and material available or existing at the relevant point of time while making the assessment and again a different or divergent view is reached, it would tantamount to "change of opinion". If an assessing authority forms an opinion during the original assessment proceedings on the basis of material facts and subsequently finds it to be erroneous; it is not a valid reason under the law for reassessment.
Entire material which is now being taken into consideration for the purpose of impugned notice and approval granted was available before Assessing Authority and after having considered the same, assessment was made. Now authorities, taking a different view, have issued impugned notice. Thus, it is a clear case of change of opinion, hence reassessment is not permissible.
Writ petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner - petitioner entitled to cost ₹ 5,000/-.
....
|
