|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 68 of 68 Records
-
2017 (11) TMI 264
Levy of penalty u/s 15A(1)(q) - allegation was that two consignment of paper which entered the State of U.P. on 20 and 23 July 1992, although accompanied with the appropriate declarations as envisaged under Section 28B, the requisite forms were not surrendered at the exit check post - Held that: - the receipt of the goods at the Delhi office was not disputed. The respondents have sought to draw adverse inference from the circumstance that although the challan was dated 20 July 1992, the goods were received by the Delhi office only on 23 July 1992. Based on this singular circumstance the respondents have proceeded to levy penalty upon the assessee.
Section 28B only puts in place a rebuttable presumption - in case an assessee is able to produce evidence which tends to indicate and establish that what is presumed is not correct, the purpose of the rebuttable presumption is over and the burden then shifts upon the Department. Once the burden shifts, it is in light of the evidence which may be led by the respective parties that the issue must be decided - This aspect of the matter has clearly been ignored by both the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal which appears to have proceeded on the misconceived assumption that the entire onus lay or stood placed upon the assessee. Once the receipt of the goods at the Delhi office was established by the assessee, the purpose of the rebuttal presumption raised by the provision was over. It was then for the respondents to establish that the goods had in fact not exited the State of U.P.
Revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist.
-
2017 (11) TMI 136
Valuation - scope of taxable turnover - whether cost of warranty replacement by Revisionist is liable to be treated as "taxable turnover" or not? - Held that: - It is not the case of Revisionist that relationship of Revisionist with "M/s MUL" is that of principal to principal but it admits that it is an authorized agency of "M/s MUL" and sale is being effected by manufacturing company through Revisionist. Similarly, goods have been supplied by M/s MUL directly and there is no independent transaction between Dealer and customer but Revisionist is acting as an agent of M/s MUL.
Neither learned counsel for Revisionist could show any otherwise distinction nor there is any material to show that Revisionist Dealer acted as a Principal with respect to sale of vehicles as also replacement of parts and it was not an agent of manufacturer but its status is that of a Principal vis-a-vis M/s MUL.
Reliance placed in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP [2004 (7) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that In a case manufacturer may have purchased from the open market parts for the purpose of replacement of the defective parts. For such transactions, it would have paid taxes. The position is not different because the assessee had supplied the parts and had received the price, and the transaction was subject to levy of tax.
Revision dismissed - decided against revisionist.
-
2017 (11) TMI 135
Adjustment of excess paid tax - Form No.I - Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 - Section 6(4) of the Samadhan Act - Held that: - Section 7(1)(b) of the Act would be relevant as the petitioner has disputed the tax as well as the penalty, in terms of the said provision, the petitioner has to pay 50% of the disputed tax and since he has also disputed the penalty, he has remitted 25% of the 50% of the tax in dispute. The language in the statute is clear that the 25% is not on the penalty imposed, but it is on 50% of the tax in dispute - on a plain reading of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act would show that whatever payments paid towards the disputed tax could very well be reckoned for payment towards the dispute regarding penalty because what is directed to be paid is 25% of such 50% of the tax in dispute - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (11) TMI 134
Validity of assessment order - belated approach - the impugned assessment orders were passed on 06.01.2016 and 30.06.2016 respectively, and the petitioner has neither exhausted the appellate remedy available under the Act, nor approached this Court earlier, questioning the validity and correctness of the assessments - Held that: - except, for the assessment year 2013-14, the tax demanded for all other three assessment years are less than ₹ 1,00,000/-. The explanation now offered by the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner has got all the details to establish that the allegations made against them is not sustainable, and if the details of the web-report has been furnished to the petitioner with an opportunity to cross-examine the third party, then, they would be in a position to establish their case that those transactions have no connection with them, or, it was in the course of normal business practice, and there is no suppression of turnover - Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer to substantiate their case - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (11) TMI 133
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - requirement of pre-deposit - Held that: - As this Court, in a catena of decisions, directed the assessees to execute a personal bond in lieu of furnishing bank guarantee, is of the view that it would be sufficient if the petitioner furnishes bond for the balance 50% of the tax and penalty instead of bank guarantee - petition allowed in part.
-
2017 (11) TMI 80
Issuance of 'C' Form declaration to the petitioner - whether the issuance of 'C' forms could be stopped for the reason that the Appeals were not disposed by the Appellate Authority? - Held that: - there has been no justification to withhold 'C' Form Declarations, solely on the ground that the Appeal Petition filed by the petitioner as against the imposition of penalty is yet to be disposed of - Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the respondent to issue 'C' Form declaration to the petitioner, by unlocking the on-line facility - petition allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 79
Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - Attachment of Bank Account - According to the petitioners, they have succeeded before the Tribunal and therefore, attaching the petitioner's bank account maintained with respondents does not arise - Held that: - the entire cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, in the sense that the order-in-original has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong and the appeal was filed before the CESTAT, Kolkata, in which the petitioner states that they have fully succeeded and the attachment of the bank account maintained with respondents 6 to 9, has been made by the 3rd respondent whose office of which is situated in Guwahati - writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, and is dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1
Release of seized goods - demand of security as a condition for release of the seized goods - Held that: - the Appellate Tribunal has already reduced the amount to ₹ 3,50,000/- and in such circumstances, having heard the contentions of the parties, we refuse to go into the questions of law raised and we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue his contentions before the Authority in the statutory proceedings - revision petition dismissed.
|
