|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 108 Records
-
2016 (10) TMI 258
Denial of exemption from payment of sales tax - Industrial Policy, 1982 - blending and packing of Tea - Eligibilty Certificate - Held that: - tea is not to be included in “raw material” and therefore, no exemption could have been claimed by the Appellant Company in respect of ‘tea’ as a raw material for purchase as well as sale of tea.
Certificate of Authorisation - Held that: - no certificate of authorisation, as provided under the Act, had ever been granted to the appellant-Company - the appellant not entitled to any sales tax exemption.
Reliance placed upon the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA Versus TARA AGENCIES [2007 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] where it was held that the appellant was not in the business of ‘manufacturing’ tea but was merely blending and packing tea, which does not amount to ‘manufacturing’ of tea.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 211
Validity of order of assessment - TNVAT Act, 2006 - denial of input tax credit - Held that: - the petitioner though has sought for certain details, the same have not been furnished to the petitioner and the assessments have been completed. Therefore, the Court of the view that the matter can be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration so as to enable the petitioner to produce proof to show that the dealers with whom they had transactions had valid registration, on the date of transaction. Apart from that, the petitioner can seek for details with regard to cross verification of the buyers and sellers as per Annexure-I and such details can be furnished by the assessing officer and after which, the petitioner can be allowed to submit further objections and assessments can be re-done - writ petition allowed - matter remanded for fresh consideration.
-
2016 (10) TMI 210
Validity of order of assessment - reversal of ITC - interstate sale falling under Section 8(1) of the CST Act, 1956 - Form-WW for the year 2013-14 along with a Covering Letter dated 31.12.2014 with the Chartered Accountant's Report required to be submitted under Rule 16 A of the TNVAT Act - time limit extended for submission of Form-WW for the Assessment Year 2014-15 - whether the assssment order passed by respondents without considering Form-WW justified? - Held that: - on account of the amendment to the rule extending the time limit for submission of Form-WW, the petitioner submitted the same on 06.01.2016. Furthermore, in the Auditor's Report filed under Section 63 A of the TNVAT Act, specifically, it has been stated that the ITC has been reversed to the extend of 3% w.e.f. 11.11.2013.
The respondent directed to redo the assessments for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 in respect of the petitioner's TIN No.33270460111 after considering all the documents. - the Writ Petition allowed - the matters remanded to respondent for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the documents produced by him and redo the assessments in accordance with law.
-
2016 (10) TMI 208
Imposition of duty under M.P. VAT Act, 2002 or the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - reopening of assessment - IMFL - Rectified Spirit - whether by virtue of Entry No.18 to Schedule-I of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 or Entry No.47 to Schedule-I of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002, the manufactured product i.e. IMFL or Rectified Spirit being an excisable article is liable to be taxed under the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 or the VAT Act, 2002 as the case may be? - assessment year prior to 1.4.2013 - Held that: - the decision in the case of Gwalior Alcobrew Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Others [2016 (9) TMI 355 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] relied upon where it was held that foreign liquor manufactured in the State of M.P. and exported to other State is an excisable article and even though it is exempted from payment of excise duty but being an excisable good on which the State Government may levy excise duty under the Excise Act, recovery of Commercial tax or VAT tax is not permissible.
Goods found to be not taxable - reopening of assessment not required - various other questions raised in the matters particularly with reference to Rectified Spirit not required to be answered - writ petitions allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 207
Sale of property conducted by Revenue authorities - property having an extent of 6.59 ares in Sy.No.112/3-1 of Block 67 of Erattupetta village - Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - attachment of property for recovery of duty with interest - prohibitory order passed by Court on 08/03/2011 - whether the sale could have been confirmed in view of the prohibition in the judgment of this Court in W.P.C.No.7119/2011? - amnesty scheme - Held that: - in the order in W.P.C.No.7119/2011, Court had imposed a restriction on further recovery steps to be taken only on an application being submitted by the petitioner. Admittedly, the application was submitted only on 12/03/2011. True that Court had granted the petitioner seven days' time to submit an application; but the fact remains that recovery steps were to be kept in abeyance only if an application was submitted within the stipulated time and thereafter recovery steps were to be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on such application. Even according to the petitioner, he submitted an application for amnesty on 12/03/2011 which was allowed on 17/03/2011. He was granted time to remit the amount on 31/03/2011 and he did not remit the amount. Therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of amnesty. No steps were taken by the revenue authorities after filing an application dated 12/03/2011 and the sale was confirmed only on 29/10/2011 - error on the part of the revenue authorities in conducting sale of property and purchasing the property at Re.1/- especially when there were no bidders.
Material irregularity in the issuance of notice - Held that: - no such ground found. Present writ petition has been filed only to delay the process of recovery of sales tax dues. An amount of more than ₹ 4 crores is to be paid by the petitioner in addition to tax dues and his attempt is only to delay the process of recovery.
No interference required with the sale conducted by the Revenue authorities - writ petition dismissed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 148
Imposition of penalty under section 54(1)(11)(i) of U.P. VAT Act - Form C and Form E-1 under the provisions of section 6 (2) of the C.S.T. Act - Held that: - The Forms supplied by the revisionist were clearly not under the U.P. VAT Act. The allegation is not that any form under the U.P. VAT Act was wrongly or falsely supplied.
If any doubt was there with regard to the forms under the C.S.T. Act then the provisions of section 10(a) of the Act would apply and recourse could be had to the remedies under that provision - The tribunal being the last fact finding authority should have passed necessary orders having recorded the findings that the forms were under the C.S.T. and also having not recorded any finding that there was any form under the U.P. VAT Act which was false or wrongful - penalty wrongly imposed.
No useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the tribunal - remand order bad - imposition of penalty also bad - revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist.
-
2016 (10) TMI 147
Restoration of appeal - Doctrine of merger - manufacturer of finished leathers, cotton yarn and shoe uppers - TNVAT Act, 2006 - rectification of mistake under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act - whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to interfere with the rectified assessment order, only with regard to the points which have been held against the petitioner? - the revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer entertaining the petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and rectifying the mistakes in the assessment order dated 10.2.2015. - the exercise adopted by the second respondent was uncalled for.
Maintainability - whether the second respondent was justified in rejecting the appeal as not entertainable? - Held that: - the decision in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Versus Sabarigiri Industries [2014 (3) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has been relied upon. The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act stood merged with the order of assessment dated 10.02.2015. Thus, in effect, the order of assessment passed against the petitioner is a modified order or rectified order passed pursuant to the exercise of powers under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act - appeal entertain-able.
Appeal restored - writ petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 146
Refund claim of excess tax paid - TNGST Act, 1959 - Held that: - in the absence of any record to show that the Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue as against the order passed in Tax Case Revisions, the Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no Appeal preferred.
The Assessing Officer given a letter, dated 26.04.2016, discharging two bank guarantees, which were furnished by the petitioner, for a sum of ₹ 70,08,501/- and ₹ 1,44,59 676/-. The said letters have been addressed to the Branch Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi Branch, New Delhi, and the letter is termed as "Discharge Letter. In the said letter, the Assessing Officer confirmed to the Bank that they do not have any claims in respect of the aforesaid two bank guarantees, and requested that the said communication may be treated as Discharge Letter, for the purpose of the records of the Bank. Thus, if the Revenue thought fit to re-agitate the matter, obviously, the Assessing Officer would not have given such letters, discharging the bank guarantees.
Direction given to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 03.11.2015, 06.11.2015, 27.01.2016, 29.02.2016 and 05.04.2016, and effect refund of the admissible amount in accordance with law within a period of six weeks - petition dismissed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 145
Opportunity of personal hearing - reversal of the process loss - reversal of the alleged stock transfer - validity of assessment - TNVAT Act, 2006 - jewellery of gold, silver and other special metal - inspection by Enforcement Wing in the premises of petitioner - Held that: - the decision in the case of M/s. Interfit Techno Products Ltd. Versus The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC) [2015 (4) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] relied upon. It was pointed out that whether a loss was an invisible loss or whether it was a destructive loss or whether it would fall within any one of the parameters specified in sub-section 9 to section 19, all being questions of fact, have to be established by the dealer when called upon by the authority. However, to decide the question, first of all the respondent should have called upon the dealer to explain their process and furnish all their books of accounts. Thus, the assessment proceedings having been made in a very summary manner, the same calls for interference.
The impugned assessment orders made in a very summary manner without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their submission and explain the nature of transactions - matters remanded to the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, calling for further details, examining the books of accounts and records placed by them and thereafter, pass a speaking order on merits - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 144
Validity of order of assessment passed under the TNVAT Act for the year 2013-14 - principles of natural justice - Held that: - It is not a case where the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity, but it is a case where the petitioner was not furnished with full details. Therefore, the respondent has to necessarily redo the Assessment in accordance with law - writ petition allowed - matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration after providing opportunity of being heard to petitioner - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 143
Principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - opportunity of personal hearing - inability to submit effective objection in the absence of details - Held that: - emphasis given in the need for giving an opportunity of personal hearing, since the order of assessment to be passed by a process of dialogue and discussions.
Matter remanded - the assessment to be redone, after giving details of the Web Report and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit additional objections - finalise the assessment, after affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - writ petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 124
Release of detained goods - Rice Bran Oil - goods transported from Andhra Pradesh to Mangalore - absence of TIN number - place of delivery not mentioned - Form LL - transit pass - Held that: - in view of the contract between the petitioner and the buyer at Karnataka and their supplier at Andhra Pradesh and after perusing the Invoice dated 18.09.2016, wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown and the place of delivery is shown as Mangalore, via Bangalore, and also considering Form-LL dated 19.09.2016, it is a fit case where the respondent has to take note of these documents and release the goods.
Respondent directed to take note of the Forms and Documents produced by the petitioner, verify the same and release the goods - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 123
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 31 of the TNGST Act - holding company, holding 100% share of subsidiary company, Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. - transfer of old machinery and generator to subsidiary company without payment of tax - penalty imposed under section 12(5) of the TNGST Act - is the delay of 4709 days condonable holding that the delay was genuine? - Held that: - TNGST Act is the self-contained statute and Section 31(1) and the first proviso of the Act provide a period of limitation (30 days + 30 days) and, any period exceeding 60 days cannot be condoned either by the said Appellate Authority or by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner is also guilty of delay and laches and even at the time of disposal of T.P.No.136 of 1997 by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, on 03.07.1997, has failed to place the relevant and necessary facts and therefore, the Tribunal on misconstruing the facts, had passed the order as if the objections have not been submitted.
Petition dismissed - delay not condoned - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 117
Validity of order passed by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-III, exercising his power of suo motu revision under section 34 of the TNGST Act, 1959 - powers conferred on the Appellate Authority and the powers conferred on the Revisional Authority who has exercised the power of suo motu Revision - Held that: - the Statute gives very wide powers to the Appellate Authority in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the TNGST Act. The Appellate Authority can revise and re-write the order of assessment and whatever discretion which has been conferred on the Assessing Officer as well.
The power of suo motu Revision conferred on the Joint Commissioner is exercisable for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the Revenue under section 34 of the Act.
The order passed by the Revisional Authority solely based upon the report of the Inspecting Officers could not have been a basis for disbelieving the stand taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which decision was arrived at based on the facts placed before the Appellate Authority. Further, the Revisional Authority does not dispute the factual position and if such is the case, no case has been made out for reviewing the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
An appeal ought to have been filed before the Special Tribunal - at the time when the Writ Petition was filed there was no Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the petitioner has approached the Court - the Writ Petition is pending from 2004, matter not relegated to the Tribunal - writ petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 116
Demand of MVAT dues - maintainability - alternative remedy of appeal - section 26 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Held that: - petitioner can appeal to Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, then, the Tribunal shall not insist on an application seeking condonation of delay being filed, but would proceed on the assumption that the Revenue does not object to the appeal on the ground of delay nor seek its dismissal only on that ground. It should then decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.
No opinion expressed on the rival contentions and it will be entirely for the parties to raise them and the Tribunal to deal with them in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with a further direction that the petitioner shall not have to seek a stay of the recovery of the amount demanded as MVAT dues if it is secured substantially by a bank guarantee as ordered by this Court which shall be kept alive till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal and for a period of six weeks thereafter.
Petition disposed off - matter remanded.
-
2016 (10) TMI 115
Failure to furnish "C Form" Declarations in time - whether the power under Section 55 of the Act is a power of review or only a rectification? - Held that: - the declaration forms to avail concessional rate of tax could be produced by the dealer at any time during the course of assessment or thereafter and if those forms are produced, then the Assessing Officer would be required to redo the assessment.
The inability to produce the 'C' Forms at the appropriate time was for reasons beyond the control on the part of petitioner - the respondent directed to consider the petition filed for rectification along with the 'C' Forms - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 114
Levying of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Into Local Area Act, 198 - power of DC(A) - validity of order passed by DC(A) u/Sec. 36 & 7 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1955 read with Sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - restoration of matter to officer having jurisdiction - Held that: - the decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion-II, Jaipur Vs. M/s Anshu Jain, Sanjay Jain [2015 (12) TMI 1477 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] apply where it was held that in case the respondent-assessee is already assessed to tax by a particular CTO, the same officer would have jurisdiction to assess the assessee and in case some of the assessees are not assessed to sales tax, then the CTO will get jurisdiction to assess according to the place of residence of the person.
Matter restored - the officer having jurisdiction will, after hearing the assessee, decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of four months - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 85
Works contract for pest control at SEZ - sale and supply of goods as per Section 2(13) and 2(23) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - registered in the category of cleaning activity service - taxation of pesticides and chemicals used in the cleaning and pest control activity under the VAT Act - 'sale' under section 2(23) of the Act - whether execution of the works contract for pest control amount to transfer of property in goods and exigible to VAT? - Held that: - this was a contract for carrying out the pest control service which would require special know-how and use of pesticides in recommended measures. The concentration of the pesticides, the amount of usage, the places to be applied and all other relevant aspects would be a matter of considerable technical expertise. The use of the pesticides in the process was wholly incidental. The dominant purpose was to provide a composite pest control and rodent control service. The use of pesticides and chemicals was wholly incidental. There was no intention of sale of goods from the assessee to the company.
Similar issue decided in the case of Pest Control India Ltd. v. Union of India and others [1989 (9) TMI 356 - PATNA HIGH COURT].
NO transfer of property in goods involved - No VAT liability - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 84
Levy and collection of Entry tax - transaction using E-commerce portal - business of providing logistics and delivery services to various individual buyers - goods purchased meant for personal use and not for re-sale - CST - Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 - Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein (Amendment) Act, 2001 - conduct of trade, commerce and intercourse as contained in Chapter XIII of the Constitution of India - whether tax can be levied on entry of goods in local areas?
Held that: - no tax can be levied on entry of goods into local areas, in terms of the impugned provisions, over the transactions, made on e-commerce portals, for personal use or consumption of individual consumer. The impugned provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 2015 (Bihar Act 9 of 2015), amending the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 and the Rules made thereunder and Notifications S.O. 176 & 18 both, dated 20.01.2016, are declared as ultra vires to the Constitution and are accordingly quashed.
The impugned provisions as contained in Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India read with Article 303 of Constitution of India.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 83
Imposition of penalty under Section 53(3) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - milling of paddy - sale of rice - difference between turnover reported in the returns and turnover reported in the audited books of accounts - alternative remedy of appeal - under-declaration of tax - Sections 53(1) and 53(3) of the Act - is imposition of penalty justified was there any wilful attempt to avoid tax? - Held that: - The distinction between Sections 53(1) and 53(3) of the Act is the dealers intent. While a bonafide error would fall within the ambit of Section 53(1) of the Act, wilful or intentional under-declaration of tax would fall within the scope of Section 53(3) of the Act.
The respondents were justified, in imposing penalty under Section 53(3) of the Act on their coming to the conclusion that the under-declaration of tax by the dealer was with wilful intent - no reason to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|
