|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 68 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1851
Seeking processing of the refund claim - refund claim is based upon the exemption orders passed by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.103 of Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) Department, dated 01.08.2012 and G.O.Ms. No.6 of CT and RE Department, dated 06.02.2013, which granted exemption with retrospective effect - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that, there appears to be no dispute with regard to the refund claim, the first respondent should definitely consider the petitioners' request and pass appropriate orders, for which purpose, the first respondent shall call for appropriate report from the respondent/Deputy Commissioner (CT), Large Tax Payers Units –I and IV respectively.
These Writ Petitions are disposed of, by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioners' individual representations dated 20.05.2016 and 23.05.2016, call for appropriate reports from the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Large Tax Payers Units –I and IV, Chennai, and pass orders on the said representations within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1847
Levy of VAT - lease charges paid by the Railway department to the petitioner - It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since the agreement was executed in West Bengal and that no transaction whatsoever transpired within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh, the State of Chhattisgarh could not have levied tax - HELD THAT:- VAT Act is an enactment by the State Legislature under entry 54 of list 2 schedule 7 of the Constitution of India.
Undisputedly, in the instant case the petitioner company is receiving the lease charges from the Railway department against the wagons purchased by the petitioner and which have been handed over to the Railway department. Admittedly, the agreement was made prior to the present South East Central Railway came into existence and the agreement was with the erstwhile South East Railway. It is also not in dispute that the wagons were manufactured by two different companies one locating in the State of West Bengal and other locating in the State of Rajasthan and the wagons have also been delivered by the manufacturers at the place of manufacture i.e. in West Bengal and Rajasthan. Since the time of transfer of the wagons to the Railway department by the manufacturers, the Railway department has been paying charges to the petitioner company.
In the instant case an agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the erstwhile and undivided South Eastern Railway and the contract was executed at Calcutta. The supplies of wagons were made at Calcutta, West Bengal and Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The further undisputed fact is that by virtue of the said sale or purchase, the benefits from the said is being reaped by the petitioner company in the State of Chhattisgarh and for the services so provided, the Railway department is paying lease charges to the petitioner again in the State of Chhattisgarh - there is a transfer of rights to use goods which in the instant case is in the form of wagons used for the transportation of materials belonging to the petitioner.
The transfer of right to use the goods and that for the wagons so purchased at the behest of the petitioner’s establishment are availing the benefits within the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the imposition of tax on the lease charges by the Assessing officer and the rejection of the revision by the Revisional authority vide its order dated 30.05.2015 is just and proper and does not warrant interference.
Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1782
Restoration of view taken by the Assessing Authority - addition of turnover and re-assessment - estimation of turnover based solely on surmises and conjectures - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the solitary bill was numbered 114 and dated 14 February 1999. On this basis the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have incorrectly proceeded to assume that 113 additional transactions were presumably undertaken by the assessee. They have also further and for reasons which cannot possibly be countenanced or accepted proceeded to hold that all these 113 transactions would have been valued at ₹ 60,770/-. The Court is constrained to observe that this line of reasoning is totally arbitrary and cannot possibly ever appeal to logic let alone acceptance in judicial proceedings. Both the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have proceeded in the matter without being educated by the principles which must necessarily govern a best judgment assessment. While it is true that in the course of estimation of turnover a certain degree of guess work must necessarily be recognized as vesting and inhering in the hands of the Assessing Authority, the same cannot possibly be construed as conferring a power to estimate turnover in a wholly whimsical manner as has been done in the facts of the present case.
The estimation of turnover of ₹ 10,00,000/- is based solely on surmises and conjectures. The mere fact that the bill in question bore the number 114, cannot automatically lead one to conclude or hold that it was preceded by 113 prior transactions and that too of identical value. Such a process of determination and assessment in the case of a taxing statute cannot be accorded approval by this Court.
The order of the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Authority dated 9 February 2007 and 24 December 2004 respectively, shall stand set aside and the decision of the First Appellate Authority dated 25 August 2006 shall stand restored - Revision allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1765
Reopening of assessment - Exemption from sales u/s 5(3) of the CST Act, 1956 - sales effected by M/s.Tea Serve to exporters in the auction center - rejection of benefit on the ground that petitioners have not complied with G.O.Ms.876 dated 29.07.1982 - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. THE UNITED NILGIRI TEA ESTATES CO. LTD., M/S. STANES AMALGAMATED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (FAC) , THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2017 (12) TMI 689 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that fulfilment of condition as specified in the notification is mandatory.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for redoing the assessment in accordance with law.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1723
Permission for withdrawal of petition - petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition - HELD THAT:- The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1722
Principles of Natural Justice - ex-parte order - Bihar VAT Act - HELD THAT:- The order itself indicates that it is ex parte order, and therefore, in the interest of fair play, the impugned order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Buxar under Section 31 & 39 of the Bihar Value Added Tax, is also set aside.
The petitioner will appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Buxar Circle, Buxar with a copy of this order on the 4th of January, 2018. The Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, will fix a date for hearing of the matter in which the petitioner shall render full cooperation and will not try to play games by seeking frivolous adjournment or avoid proper assistance in the adjudication.
Application disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1718
Revision of pay-scale - request for same pay- scale as is available to a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal, appointed from amongst the Additional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of Trade Tax Department - HELD THAT:- We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed.
The denial of same pay scale to the petitioner on the ground that his appointment on the post of Member, Trade Tax Tribunal was made from amongst the Advocates quota is wholly unjust and unreasonable. There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of appointment of the petitioner as a Member, Trade Tax Tribunal, the pay scale of Member was ₹ 4500-5700 which was ultimately revised to ₹ 5900-6700. Once the pay scale given to the petitioner at the initial stage has been extended to all other members from different two quotas, then the denial of the same benefit to the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. Members of same cadre have right to get same scale of pay and the respondents have failed to established that the classification was based on some intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with job requirement.
There is a invidious discrimination - the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of same scale of pay which was admissible to the other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal, who were appointed from amongst the Addl. Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of the Trade Tax Department is hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1711
Principles of natural justice - the petitioner did not respond to the revision notice dated 16.08.2017 - petitioner's case is that they sent a representation dated 20.09.2017 by registered post requesting for time and such representation was received in the office of the respondent on 21.09.2017 as seen from the postal acknowledgement card and the respondent could have granted time - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer, more so, when the proposed revision of assessment is based upon the materials culled out from the official website of the Department. Such direction would be coupled with certain conditions.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1659
Penalty u/s 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Form-C - no suppression of facts - Held that:- In order to justify the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 10A, the authority must come to hold conclusively that the dealer had falsely represented when purchasing goods in the course of inter-state commence that they were covered by its certificate of registration - As the Court reads the order of the assessing authority and the Tribunal it finds that no findings have been recorded in support of the case that a false representation had been made by the assessee.
This Court finds itself unable to sustain the view taken by the Tribunal that the conduct of the revisionist would fall within the category of a false representation - revision allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1654
Levy of CST - rejection of H-Forms - principles of natural justice - Held that:- The impugned revision order passed by respondent No. 1 is in the teeth of the law declared by this Court as well as the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On this short ground, the impugned revision order is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to return the defective H-Forms to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1649
Prayer to consider the monthly return submitted on 19. 09. 2014 - Held that:- If a genuine mistake has crept-in, then, within the time permitted under the Statute, the dealer is entitled to file revised Form WW or revised return. In fact, this has been done by the petitioner and along with the revised Form WW.
This Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner dated 21. 08. 2017 received by the State Tax Officer on the same day, should be considered on merits - the respondent should also take into consideration the revised monthly return submitted on 19. 09. 2014 - petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1644
Imposition of penalty - KVAT Act - inheritance of property of father - proceedings initiated by the respondents for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P7 order imposing penalty under the Act on the father of the petitioner from him - Held that:- The petitioner admits that he has inherited properties from his father. In so far as the petitioner has inherited properties from his father, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount covered by the order to the extent of the value of the properties inherited by him from his father.
The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer appeal, if so advised.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1619
Revocation of Suspension order - Reversion of petitioner from the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to the post of Assistant - case of Revenue is that the allegations against the writ petitioner, are serious and therefore, they cannot revoke the order of suspension - Held that:- It is mandatory that whenever disciplinary proceedings are initiated against a Government employee, the same should be completed within a reasonable period of time, unless there is an acceptable impediment. Under normal circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings initiated ought to have been completed, without any further delay. The long delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings will certainly cause prejudice to the employees, in respect of their promotions, retiral benefits etc. Thus, the Competent Authorities have to see that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner is concluded, within a reasonable period of time.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner was also reverted to the post of Assistant from the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in proceedings dated 18.12.2014 - this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no bar for the respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings. However, now more than four years have lapsed and there is no reason to continue the order of suspension against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner may be reinstated and he may be posted in any one of the non-sensitive post till the final disposal of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the writ petitioner - This Court is of further opinion that placing an employee under suspension for an unspecified period will cause monetary loss to the State Exchequer.
In the case on hand, the writ petitioner is under continuous suspension for more than four years and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the suspension deserves to be set aside - the order of suspension issued by the respondent in Memo No.EE2/21208/2013 dated 31.3.2016 is quashed and the writ petitioner may be posted in the post of Assistant in any one of the non-sensitive post till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1601
Demand of Interest - Transfer of right to use goods - contract for transportation of foodgrains excuted for and on behalf of the FCI - whether the Food Corporation of India (FCI) is liable to pay interest on the amount deducted by it from the bills of the petitioners which they failed to deposit with the State-respondents during the period stipulated by sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005?
Held that:- A combined reading of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules so extracted plainly shows that the person responsible for making payment (FCI in this case) to any person (the petitioner in this case) is required to deduct from the bills of the petitioner any sum payable for the transfer of the right to use any goods other than goods in the exempted list of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and that the amount so deducted shall be deposited into the Government Treasury by the person making such deduction within 7 days of the month following that in which the deduction is made. Sub-rule (11) mandates that if such person fails to make the deduction or, after making the deduction fails to deposit the amount so deducted, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rates contained in Section 44 (it should be read as "Section 45") of the Act on the amount so deducted.
The FCI never complied with sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules requiring them to deposit all the deducted amounts into the Government Treasury by Challans in Form XVIII within 7 days of the month following the date on which the deductions were so made from the bills of the petitioners in both the cases. The belated deposits made by them cannot now save them from paying the statutory interest to the petitioners. The FCI has entered into the shoes of the State-respondents for any liability to pay statutory interest to the petitioners with respect to the deducted amount not deposited by them to the State-respondents within the statutory period - On account of such omissions, deliberate or otherwise, the provision of sub-rule (11) of Rule 7 of the Rules shall enure to the benefit of the petitioners in both the cases. The petitioners in both the cases are, therefore, entitled to the statutory interest.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1584
Recovery attempted as against the security bond executed by the petitioners/appellants - contention raised by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that security bond was executed on 22.10.2013. The recovery now proposed was relating to the default made between the period May and September, 2013 - Held that:- When a security bond is executed in form No.6, there is no stipulation either in the Rule or in the form that the bond would apply only to the default occasioned in future. The liability though was prior to the execution of the bond by the petitioners, remained due even after the bond was executed. In such circumstances, there can be no fault found in the recovery attempted from the petitioners.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1583
Penalty of the stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect - it was alleged that the petitioner claimed to have passed the departmental test in Local Audit Fund, with a bogus certificate - Held that:- It can hardly be said that the enquiry report and the final order are vitiated by perversity.
The challenge of the petitioner in the year 2012, to the order of penalty dated 10-12-2009, was also barred by limitation.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1582
Rejection of Stay application - The petitioner claimed that it had already made pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax before the Tribunal. If during the pendency of the said appeal, the balance disputed tax is recovered in its entirety, the petitioner may suffer serious prejudice - Held that:- In order to balance the interests of both the parties, the respondents are restrained from recovering the balance disputed tax subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today, pending Tax Appeal - While calculating 50% of the disputed tax, the pre-deposit, if any, made by the petitioner shall be given credit to - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1545
Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the respondent is not empowered to invoke Section 27 of the TNVAT Act for making reassessment on the alleged escaped turnover without following the procedure under the said provision - Held that: - the petitioner has raised various factual issues and disputed the observations and findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, without analyzing the factual matrix, it cannot be considered as to whether the respondent was justified in invoking Section 27 of the TNVAT Act.
The petitioner has to necessarily avail the appellate remedy available under the TNVAT Act which is not only efficacious but also effective. Merely because the statute mandates a pre-deposit is no ground to bypass the appellate remedy.
The writ petition is held to be not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1539
Non-payment of tax - petitioner's case is that it is never their intention not to pay the tax, but due to unexpected contingency and stringent financial crisis, they were unable to pay the tax - Held that: - there is no provision under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, to permit the dealer to remit tax in installments. If that be so, the Court would not be justified in granting such indulgence. However, this will not preclude the second respondent from considering the bona fidies of the dealer/petitioner, and make necessary accommodation. This is, with a view to ensure that the tax is collected from the defaulting dealer at the earliest - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1483
Detention of goods - in the course of lorry check, on verification of the dealer's profile and monthly returns, it revealed that they have purchased huge quantity of such machines, but no proof of payment of tax was found out - whether the order of detention passed by the respondent is valid and proper and as to whether the transaction could be treated as a sale within the State of Tamil Nadu and tax could be levied under the provisions of the said Act? - Held that: - the contract is between the State Bank of India, Navi Mumbai and the petitioner at New Delhi with a specific condition that the goods are to be supplied to the State Bank of India, Chennai to be routed through their agent and service provider M/s.Hitachi Payment Services Private Limited. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable, more so, when the State Bank of India themselves have given a certificate dated 11.4.2017, clearly explaining the nature of transaction - petition allowed.
|
