|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 76 Records
-
2017 (10) TMI 1620 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - respondents submits that the Petitioner has to file ‘C’ forms in physical form with the Authorities and thereafter the claim for refund can be processed by the Authorities - HELD THAT:- It will be open to the petitioner to file the physical ‘C’ forms with the Authorities within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent authority will thereafter process the refund claim of the petitioner within the statutory period. In case there is a delay in the process of refund claim of the petitioner beyond the statutory period, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application in these writ petitions and ask for revival.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1572 - SC ORDER
Jurisdiction of authority - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petition (Civil) against the relied upon order has been dismissed by the order of this Court dated 3rd October, 2017. Consequently, the present Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1476 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - assessment year 2004-05 - petitioner received pre-assessment notice, they have not filed objections, therefore the Revenue would have been justified in confirming the proposal in the revision notice - HELD THAT:- Apart from that, the impugned assessment order has been passed solely guided by the 'D3' report formulated by the Enforcement Wing Officers. Even in the para wise comments furnished by the learned Special Government Pleader by the respondent vide letter dated 02. 02. 2007, the same stand has been taken stating that the petitioner accepted the suppression before the Enforcement Wing. The Assessing Officer being an independent authority cannot be boundover by a 'D3' proposal. Thus, the impugned assessment order is completely flawed for the above errors.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The respondent has levied penalty on the ground of misuse of Form XVII. The petitioner filed an application under Section 55 of the TNGST Act to rectify the assessment order. This has been rejected by order dated 11. 10. 2006, stating that the machineries were not installed. Hence, the misuse of Form XVII occurred only during the assessment year 2004-05 and levy of tax and penalty under Section 23 of the TNGST Act is in accordance with law.
The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of excess tax paid - recovery of tax dues either by attaching the bank account or issuing garnishee - Held that:- The respondents are directed to take serious note of the observation made in this order and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application for refund dated 22.02.2017 for both the assessment years followed by further representation to the first respondent dated 12.05.2017, and appropriate orders should be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1394 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Revision of assessment order - Held that:- Admittedly the petitioner has paid 12.5% of the disputed tax, as a pre-condition for filing the first appeal. Therefore, by directing the petitioner to pay some more amount and granting stay, the equity can be done - the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in addition to 12.5% already paid, within a period of 6 (six) weeks. Upon such deposit, there will be an interim stay of collection of the balance amount till the disposal of the first appeal.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1382 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - levy of one time tax and compounding fees - respondent suspected the nature of transaction that there is a likelihood of disposal of the imported goods within the State of Tamil Nadu and the concern with office at Kottivakkam being not registered in the Tamil Nadu - Held that:- Petitioner has placed necessary records to show that the consignment left customs barrier and reached Pondicherry in the same vehicle and adequate proof has been shown that the equipment is now with the petitioner. Thus, merely because the address of the notified party is in Chennai cannot be a sole reason to disbelieve the contention raised by the petitioner especially when the petitioner has been able to produce sufficient records to establish the genuinity of their transaction.
The detention notice and consequential compounding order are completely not sustainable - petition allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1372 - SC ORDER
The petitioner was required to inform the Court as to whether question “Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the LPG and acetylene gas are not fuel as per Section 11(3)(b)(iii) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act?” is pending for adjudication before this Court? - Held that:- It appears that Civil Appeal Nos. 11801-11802 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 11095-11102 of 2017 are pending before this Court - The delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned - leave granted.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1371 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the LPG and acetylene gas are not fuel as per Section 11(3)(b)(iii) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act? - List the matter after two weeks.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1362 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - levy of Sales Tax - purview of rectification - review of order not allowed in garb of rectification - Section 71 of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 - Held that:- The application was made under Section 70 (1) of the Act of 1994 before the Board of Revenue for making reference to this Court for consideration on the question of law, but that was not done and reference application has been allowed to be converted into rectification application under Section 71 of the Act of 1994 immediately and without notice in writing as required under second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1994 - original application was filed for making reference to this Court, in that event, application for rectification ought not to have been entertained by the Board of Revenue that too without statutory notice prescribed under the Act of 1994 to the petitioners.
The impugned order dated 26.9.2003 and consequential orders passed by the Board of Revenue qua the petitioners herein are hereby set aside - the matter is remitted to the Commercial Tax Tribunal, who shall hear the parties and consider the application under Section 71 (1) of the Act of 1994 expeditiously in view of the fact that matter is old one - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1361 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - main ground on which the impugned orders have been challenged is on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice - Held that:- Since the impugned assessment orders have been passed based on mismatch, as culled out from the official website and on the alleged ground that the petitioner has effected purchases from registration certificate cancelled dealers, this is a case where the respondent should have furnished all details and given the assessee, adequate opportunity to file their objections - this Court is satisfied that the impugned assessment orders are in violation of principles of natural justice.
The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1346 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Recovery of Dues - priority of debt - registration of security interest - letter vide reference No. A7/119/2014, dated 04.04.2017 - Gazette Notification No. EG No. 190/2016, dated 06.12.2016.
Held that:- After the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses, etcetera - It is not in dispute that the assets, over which security interest is created by way of registration originally in favour of the Andhra Bank which was later assigned to the petitioner, are still standing in the name of respondent No.3 / the guarantors. Therefore, the question of Section 26-E of the Act being prospective or retrospective does not arise as regards the assets, which remained intact without being sold by any creditor as on the date of coming into force of the said provision. Therefore, the petitioner has priority over all other debts including revenues, taxes, cesses, etcetera payable to the Central or State Governments or local authorities.
The demand made by respondents 1 and 2, impugned in this Writ Petition, is declared as illegal and unenforceable - petition allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1312 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The order that has been challenged has now been recalled by order dated 23.10.2017, as such no cause of action now survives - petition dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1289 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
No one appears in support of the application - No accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellant/applicant - application dismissed for default.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether in the facts, evidences, circumstances and details available on record, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of grant of prospective effect u/s 56(2) of the MVAT Act?
Held that: - In view of these specific assertions, we request the learned President of the Tribunal to submit a report dealing with what is stated in paragraph 5. The report shall be submitted in a sealed envelope which shall not be opened without prior permission of this Court - appeal to be listed for directions.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1219 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rescinding of sales tax exemption - The Government of Gujarat had provided certain exemptions from payment of sales tax in case of certified manufacturers registered under the Khadi Board. On the purchases also, the petitioner was subject to certain condition not liable to pay tax. These exemptions were granted under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. With the replacement of the State Sales Tax Act by the VAT Act w.e.f. 01.04.2006, such exemptions stood withdrawn.
Held that: - section 41 of the Act pertains to remission of tax penalty or interest. It was in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of section 41 that the Government had issued a notification dated 27.02.2009 granting remission of whole of the tax payable on the specified products by a certified manufacturer on the sale of such goods. This was subject to limits imposed in terms of condition No.1 to the notification. Condition No.3 provided that the said certified manufacturer would issue tax invoice or retail invoice in accordance with the provisions of the VAT Act. In essence, the Government desired to waive tax component on sale of such specified goods by the certified manufacturer dealers.
In whatever manner the accounting treatment may be given to such tax component, the loss to the ex-chequer would be limited to 4+1% of the tax which, under the said notification, Government had decided to forgo. If the contention of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee having shown to have collected the tax from the purchaser and not deposited with the Government refund by granting refund of such amount, the Government revenue would suffer double loss, such contention is plainly erroneous.
The decision of the Assessing Authority to deny the tax remission to the petitioner is set aside. The Assessing authority shall pass fresh order granting such benefit to the assessee with further statutory benefits if any available - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Works contract - Levy of vat - transfer of property - in a dyeing works contract, the goods to be incorporated may either be as goods or in some other form similar to the accretion or occasions due to the application of dyes and chemicals - whether the dyes and chemicals is distinguishable from that of consumables like fuel or welding electrodes which are exhausted or disappeared after the work executed? - Held that: - These two questions of law were considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V. S.S.M. Processing Mills [2013 (10) TMI 486 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the answer to both the questions were against the assessee, holding that bleaching contract attracts sales tax as in the case of dyeing contract, when the chemicals are purchased from outside the state.
As on date, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of S.S.M. Processing Mills has attained finality and holds the field. Therefore, the present attempt of the petitioner to argue contrary to the decision is clear attempt to reopen a settled issue in an indirect manner, which cannot be permitted - petition dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Zero rated sales - eligibility for exemption - Section 22 (2) of TNVAT Act - Held that: - two errors have been committed by the respondent while making such observation. Firstly, the respondent did not call for any such specific document. Secondly, non furnishing of the documents before the Enforcement Wing Officials is of little avail. When the revision of assessment proceeding has been taken up by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has to independently apply his mind, and assess the turnover - These two glaring errors are sufficient to hold that the impugned assessment orders are totally unsustainable.
Matter requires to be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1167 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rejection of revised returns - Rule 131 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - rejection on the ground that such rejected revised returns did not indicate any additional tax liability and proof of payment thereof - Held that: - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultant India (P) Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 826 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that even the reversal of input tax credit claimed by assessee resulted in an additional tax liability and the revised returns on the basis of such additional tax liability, disclosed were required to be accepted in terms of the Circular issued by the Commissioner on 7.7.2008.
Though the Assessing Authority has referred to the said Division Bench’s judgment, it appears that he has not fully understood the ratio of the same or has not carefully examined the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. The matter, therefore deserves to be remanded to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh orders for each month separately, accepting all the revised returns for the period July 2005 to March 2006 - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - TNGST Act - Section 54 of the TNGST Act - opportunity to cross-examine - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Rajaganapathi Traders Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) [2017 (10) TMI 1164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that without affording an opportunity of cross examination of the other end dealer, there was no scope for the respondent to rely on the material relating to the said dealer for determination of the said liability on the petitioner - petition allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1165 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of application filed under Samadhan Scheme - case of petitioner is that such order was not intimated to the petitioner, and only when the petitioner received a notice from the second respondent, dated 18.09.2017, demanding tax, interest and penalty for the year 1992-1993 under TNGST Act, they came to know that their application filed under Samadhan Scheme has been rejected - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Nippon Enterprises (South) Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) Chennai and another) [2015 (4) TMI 1209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that once the superior authority (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) passes an order, such order is binding on the lower authority (Assessing Officer) who function under the jurisdiction of such superior authority and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Assessing Officer who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - first respondent is directed to entertain the Application filed by the petitioner under Samadhan Scheme and pass necessary orders in accordance with law - petition allowed.
|
