|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 86 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 1421 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Inter-state Sales - declaration forms - Form-C - Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 - exemption towards tax holiday - the Company had approached their purchaser, on various occasions for C-Form declarations, but their supplier failed to produce the same to them - demand - Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in invoking proviso to Rule 12(7) of the CST (Registration and Turnover) instead of invoking the power proviso to section 8(4)?
Held that: - As per the provisions of the Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) Rules, 1967, C-Form Declarations ought to have been submitted before 25th April, 2007, being the last date to submit the last month return of the year 2006-07 or in pursuance of sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, C-Form Declarations ought to have been submitted within June' 2007. However, in the case on hand, the assessment order has been passed on 13.05.2014, by the assessing authority. An appeal has been filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Authority has proceeded, by stating that as per sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, C-Form Declarations ought to have been submitted within June' 2007. As per the proviso to Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate with in the aforesaid time, that authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as that authority may permit.
Whether the appellant had acted diligently to obtain the Form-C Declarations, from their purchasers, for production before the authorities? - Held that: - Though in the case in hand, the department has contended that sufficient cause was not shown for the production of C-Form declaration, before the assessing officer and that no request was made for production of the same, accepting the contention of the assessee therein that the Appellate Authority/Tribunal, has powers to receive documents, in particular, Form-C declarations and considering the fact that the assessee had taken diligent steps to obtain Form-C Declarations, from their purchasers, by causing a legal notice and on obtaining the same, produced the C-Form Declarations, we accept the sufficient cause shown, which the authorities have failed to consider - impugned order set aside.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1420 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Section 39 (2) of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - since the issues raised in the present writ petitions are pending before Appellate Tribunal on the appeals filed by the assessee, therefore, the matters may be allowed to be agitated before the said appellate forum - the appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeals with a view to approach before the appellate authority - petition dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1419 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Natural justice - Job Work Charges - Liability under Section 13 of the Act - Held that: - if the opportunity of personal hearing had been granted to the petitioner, then, the entire material could have been thrashed out before the respondent without giving room for any presumptions or assumptions. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is admitted that the petitioner has purchased materials in their name. If such is the position, then, the issue would be as to whether the findings recorded by the respondent are correct.
Penalty u/s 27 (3) and (4) of the Act - Held that: - it is admitted by the respondent even in the revision notice, dated 14.09.2015, that the entire details have been culled out from the balance sheet and other documents produced by the petitioner - penalty set aside.
The findings rendered by the respondent, in both the impugned assessment orders under the head Job Work Charges and Liability under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1418 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reversal of ITC - interpretation of statute - proviso to Section 19 (2) (ii) of TNVAT Act - Held that: - it appears that the State is in the process of preferring Appeals, by re-presenting the Appeal papers and the Appeals are yet to be numbered. The settled legal position being that, mere pendency of the Appeal(s), without interim order(s), will not amount to the grant of stay of the order(s) passed by the Lower Court or Lower Forum - In the instant cases, it appears that the Appeals filed by the State are yet to be numbered - the decision in the case of M/s. Everest Industries Limited Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) [2017 (3) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] apply, where it was held that the limitation provided in the proviso would apply only vis-a-vis the purpose specified in clause (v) and not qua other purposes set out in clause (i) to (iv) and (vi) of Section 19(2) of the 2006 Act.
Writ Petitions are disposed of, by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's petitions/letters/representations, dated 30.03.2017, taking note of the decision of the Court in M/s. Everest Industries Ltd.'s case - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Issuance of C declaration forms - amount of penalty due to be deposited - whether the respondent would be justified in withholding the C Form declarations? - Held that: - The petitioner, though entitled to prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the assessment order, is not required to effect any pre-deposit of penalty amount. If there are tax arrears, then 25% of the disputed tax has to be pre-deposited mandatorily for being entitled to present the appeal. The Statute itself does not provide for any pre-deposit in the case of penalty - it is too harsh to withhold the C Form declarations, when the petitioner is entitled to C Form declaration.
The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to release the C Form declarations, to which, the petitioner is eligible - petition allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1361 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Protective assessment order - Section 38(2) read with Section 36 and Section 72 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that: - the respondent- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes department has assigned the matters for fresh and regular re-assessment proceedings U/s 39(1) of the KVAT Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)- 5.5, DVO-05, Bengaluru - the writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned protective assessment order stands withdrawn - petition dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1360 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adjustment of the input tax credit - refund of input tax credit - time limitation - The petitioner's specific case is that they have been making the claim in Form No.1 within the period prescribed under Section 19(11) of the State Act and hence, the respondent was not justified in issuing the show cause notices proposing to reverse the input tax credit on the ground that the claim was not made within 180 days as per Section 18 of the State Act.
Held that: - it is admitted that the appeal is yet to be numbered and it is still in the SR stage - The settled legal position is that mere pendency of an appeal would not amount to stay of a judgment or order. In the instant case, the appeal is yet to be numbered - the decision in the case of M/s. Everest Industries Limited Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) [2017 (3) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the limitation provided in the proviso would apply only vis-a-vis the purpose specified in clause (v) and not qua other purposes set out in clause (i) to (iv) and (vi) of Section 19(2) of the 2006 Act.
The impugned assessment orders are set aside in so far as the rejection of the petitioner's objections with regard to adjustment of input tax credit - Matter is remanded back to redo the asessment - petition allowed partly by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty - petitioners seek a direction to the respondent to issue C declaration forms to them through on-line by unlocking the facility in the corresponding tax payer identification number and the general sales tax number - Held that: - this Court upheld the power of the respondents to withhold the C Form declarations, as the respondents are statutorily empowered to do so - respondent are directed to release the C Form declarations, to which, the petitioners are eligible. Simultaneously, there will be a direction to the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act Appellate Tribunal, Puducherry to take up for hearing the stay petitions - petition allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1308 - SUPREME COURT
Input tax credit - partial credit / rebate - sale of by-product which is exempt - Section 17 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Act), 2003 - credit on Sunflower oil cake, which is input - when the sunflower oil is extracted, by-product in the form of de-oiled sunflower oil cake also becomes available. This by-product is sold by the respondent but on the sale of this by-product, no VAT is payable as it is exempted item under the KVAT Act - the appellant - State has taken the view that the assessee would be entitled to only partial rebate of input tax because of the reason that though output tax is paid on sunflower oil, it is not paid on the sale of de-oiled cake - assessee, on the other hand, contends that Section 17 of the KVAT Act would not be applicable in the instant case because of the reason that sunflower oil cake, as an input, is used in its entirety in the extraction of sunflower oil. De-oiled cake is not the result of any manufacturing process but is only a by-product.
Held that: - The first mistake which is committed by the High Court is to ignore the plain language of sub-section (1) of Section 17. This provision which allows partial rebate makes the said provision applicable on the ‘sales’ of taxable goods and goods exempt under Section 5. Thus, this sub-section refers to ‘sale’ of the ‘goods’, taxable as well as exempt, and is not relatable to the ‘manufacture’ of the goods. The High Court has been swayed by the fact that while extracting oil from sunflower, cake emerges only as a by-product. Relevant event is not the manufacture of an item from which the said by-product is emerging. On the contrary, it is the sale of goods which triggers the provisions of Section 17 of KVAT Act. Whether it is by-product or manufactured product is immaterial and irrelevant. Fact remains that de-oiled cake is a saleable commodity which is actually sold by the respondent assessee. Therefore, de-oiled cake fits into the definition of “goods” and this commodity is exempt from payment of any VAT under Section 5 of the KVAT Act. Thus, provisions of Section 17 clearly get attracted when ‘sale’ of these goods takes place.
Also, the High Court has not considered the import and effect of sub-rule (3) of Rule 131 of the KVAT Rules - After perusing Rule 131 in its entirety, it becomes clear that sub-rule (1) pertains to input tax directly relatable to sales of exempt goods which is non-deductible. Likewise, sub-rule (2) mandates that input tax directly relating to sale of goods shall be deductible. On the other hand, sub-rule (3) covers those cases where input tax is not directly relatable to exempt goods and taxable goods. It is therefore, applied in those cases where input tax relating to both sale and taxable goods and exempt goods is known. In that situation, formula is given under this sub-rule to work out the partial deduction. The High Court has neither take note of nor discussed sub-rule (3).
Literal interpretation to Section 17 - there was no reason for departing from the principle of literal construction in a taxing statute.
The entire scheme of the KVAT Act is to be kept in mind and Section 17 is to be applied in that context. Sunflower oil cake is subject to input tax. The Legislature, however, has incorporated the provision, in the form of Section 10, to give tax credit in respect of such goods which are used as inputs/ raw material for manufacturing other goods - how much tax credit is to be given and under what circumstances, is the domain of the Legislature and the courts are not to tinker with the same.
On literal interpretation of Section 17 it can be gathered that it does not distinguish between by-product, ancillary product, intermediary product or final product. The expressions used are ‘goods’ and ‘sale’ of such goods is covered under Section 17. Both these ingredients stand satisfied as de-oiled cakes are goods and the respondent assessee had sold those goods for valuable consideration - Section 17 gets attracted in the instant case and the view taken by the High Court is erroneous.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1307 - SUPREME COURT
Input tax credit - Section 11 of the VAT Act - whether the tax credit is to be reduced at the rate of 4% under sub-clause (ii) and again at the same rate under sub-clause (iii) as well or deduction permissible is only once?
Held that: - The Assessing Officer had held that in respect of such goods tax credit is required to be reduced at the rate of 4% under sub-clause (ii) and again at the rate of 4% under sub-clause (iii) - the legislative intent of Section 11(3)(b) can be gathered from proviso thereto which provides that where the rate of tax of taxable goods is less than 4%, then the amount of tax credit in respect of such dealer shall be reduced by the amount of tax calculated at the rate of tax set out in the Schedule of such goods, meaning thereby, if the tax credit available to a dealer is less than 4%, the reduction should be limited to such credit and no more. From this, the High Court has observed that the Legislature envisaged that in no case reduction of tax credit under Section 11(3)(b) would accede 4%.
It is a mega tax credit scheme which is provided under the VAT Act meant for all kinds of manufactured goods. The material in question, namely, furnace oil, natural gas and light diesel oil are admittedly subject to VAT under the VAT Act. The Legislature, however, has incorporated the provision, in the form of Section 11, to give tax credit in respect of such goods which are used as inputs/ raw material for manufacturing other goods. Rationale behind the same is simple. When the finished product, after manufacture, is sold, VAT would be again payable thereon. This VAT is payable on the price at which such goods are sold, costing whereof is done keeping in view the expenses involved in the manufacture of such goods plus the profits which the manufacturer intends to earn. Insofar as costing is concerned, element of expenses incurred on raw material would be included. In this manner, when the final product is sold and the VAT paid, component of raw material would be included again. Keeping in view this objective, the Legislature has intended to give tax credit to some extent. However, how much tax credit is to be given and under what circumstances, is the domain of the Legislature and the courts are not to tinker with the same.
Reduction of 4% would be applied whenever a case gets covered by sub-clause (ii) and again when sub-clause (iii) is attracted - This, however, would be subject to one limitation. In those cases where VAT paid on such raw material is 4%, as in the case of furnace oil, reduction cannot be more than that. After all, Section 11 deals with giving credit in respect of tax that is paid.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1306 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rectification application - refund claim - The petitioner seeks for a direction upon the respondent to modify the orders of refund dated 23.11.2015 and the orders of rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for rectification dated 25.11.2016 and consequently to sanction refund of the value of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Section 18(1) of the TNVAT Act and the refund pertaining to wastage - time limitation - Held that: - It is no doubt true that the petitioner did not immediately file the applications but preferred the applications after about a period of 10 months. Be that as it may. The respondent was bound to consider the said applications, since the TNVAT Act does not prescribe an outer time limit for filing applications under Section 84 of the Act - the reason assigned by the respondent in the orders dated 25.11.2016 for rejecting the applications filed under Section 84 of the Act is incorrect. Admittedly, in the order dated 23.11.2015, while granting partial relief to the petitioner, the respondent disallowed the substantial portion of the refund claim. The order does not stated as to why such disallowance has been made. There is no explanation in the order dated 23.11.2015 as to how, the respondent adopted uniform percentage of wastage at 2%.
When the respondent has not assigned reasons for disallowing part of refund claim while passing order dated 23.11.2015, it is sufficient to hold that the order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and necessarily rectifiable under Section 84 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent was bound to exercise the power in a judicious manner and consider the case of the petitioner, as putforth by them, in their applications filed under Section 84 of the Act dated 28.10.2016.
The orders passed by the respondent dated 25.11.2016 and the orders of refund dated 23.11.2015 in so far as it disallow the part of the refund claim under the heads Wastage as per Section 19(9) of the Act at 2 % and Less Capital Goods are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Liability of interest - relevant date - whether the first respondent was justified in demanding interest from the due date for re-payment of the loan or the petitioner is liable to pay interest only from the date of the returns?
Held that: - the liability to pay penal interest can be only from the date on which repayment is due and not on the date on which return has been filed. The interpretation sought to be given by the first respondent in the impugned notice is incorrect interpretation - matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1304 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of purchase tax - Section 7(A) of the TNGST Act - sale of Turmeric and Turmeric Powder - The case of the petitioners is largely based on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Hotel Shri Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2007 (4) TMI 623 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Section 7(A) should be a charging section as well as a remedial one, in as much as it levies a tax on the purchases of goods by a dealer from a registered dealer or from any other person who may be either unregistered dealer or other persons such as agriculturists and other producers who are not liable to pay tax under the TNVAT Act on the sales or purchases.
Held that: - it would be improper to interdict the proceedings at the very threshold, namely, at the stage of show cause notice. Admittedly, the respondent has jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notices and what has now been contested by the petitioners is that they have no power to levy purchase tax. This issue involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts and therefore, the petitioners have to necessarily submit their objections to the impugned notices.
The writ petitions are held to be premature and not maintainable - petition dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1303 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - aloe vera juice - whether aloe vera juice is covered by the expression "processed or preserved vegetable"? - Held that: - The case of the Revenue is not as to whether aloe vera is a vegetable or "Sabji" but aloe vera juice is not "fruit juice" nor covered under the expression "processed or preserved vegetables".
It is settled principle of law that if an entry had been interpreted consistently in a particular manner for several assessment years, then in that event it is not permissible for the Revenue to depart therefrom, unless there is any material change - It is not disputed by the Revenue that aloe vera juice is being sold by the dealer at lower rate of tax since 2007-08 and even after the enactment of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
Tribunal was justified in holding that the entry "processed vegetable" is of wide amplitude and would within its ambit include aloe vera juice which can only be sold upon being processed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1243 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Restoration of appeal - Penalty u/s 67(1)(c) of the Act - benefit u/s 22(5) of the KVAT Act - whether such an order could have been passed by the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the assessee and particularly in the absence of appeal or cross objection by the Revenue? - Held that: - Although this issue was not raised in the appellate order, this was pointedly raised in the rectification applications as is seen from the orders passed by the Tribunal itself - it is not that in a case of this magnitude, the issues were properly framed or considered - matters require to be considered afresh with due application of mind - proceedings are now restored to the files of the Tribunal for re-consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1242 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interpretation of statute - refund - reversal of input tax credit - Section 19 (2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Held that: - it appears that the State is in the process of preferring Appeals by re-presenting the Appeal papers and the Appeals are yet to be numbered. The settled legal position being that, mere pendency of an Appeal without interim order will not amount to the grant of stay of the order passed by the Lower Court or Lower Forum - In the instant case, it appears that the Appeals filed by the State are yet to be numbered. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate direction in this Writ Petition, however, leaving it open to the respondents to pursue their Appeal in the meantime.
Similar issue decided in the case of M/s. Everest Industries Limited Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) [2017 (3) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that A plain reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act would show that, as long as specified goods, which suffer tax are used for any of the purposes set out in clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 19, the assessee should be able to claim the ITC, with a caveat in so far as clause (v) is concerned - the respondent directed to take note of the decision of the Court in M/s. Everest Industries Ltd.'s case and pass decision on merits - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1171 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of 511 days - case of appellant is that there was no lack of bonafide on part of the applicant and the delay was caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the authorities - Revenue took a view that he assessee had filed a writ petition claiming refund arising out of the judgment of the Tribunal, since for a long time after the judgment was delivered, the authorities were not releasing the refund, the decision of the authorities to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal was clearly an afterthought - also the case of Revenue was that the delay is not properly explained.
Held that: - after the judgment was delivered by the Tribunal and a copy thereof was available with the department, the procedure was undertaken to challenge the same before the High Court. However, the appeal could not be presented because of various reasons cited in the delay condonation application and further amplified in the additional affidavit. It is also pointed out that the papers were missing in the office of the Government Pleader for some time which also contributed partly to the delay. Since this explanation is forthcoming on oath and when the revenue effect involved in the Tax Appeals is substantial, we would accept the explanation and condone the delay rather than rejecting the Tax Appeals without entering into the merits, of course by awarding cost.
A responsible officer of the level of Deputy Commissioner has stated on oath twice that upon receipt of the copy of the judgment of the Tribunal, proposal was moved for challenging the same and once the decision to challenge the same was taken, papers were supplied to the Government pleader for filing appeal. We do not have reason to doubt or dispute such averments made on oath. Merely because, may be due to miscommunication between the departments, the Court in the writ petition was not apprised about such pending proposal, would not mean that there was no such proposal pending.
In the case of STATE OF GUJARAT Versus WELSPUN GUJARAT STAHL ROHREN LTD. [2013 (3) TMI 626 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in somewhat similar background, the Court had condoned such delay in the process holding that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract public justice, and it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing an appeal.
Dealy condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - Wrong claim of input tax credit - Discrepancy in Form WW - Defective certificates issued by buyers of capital goods - Service income - Miscellaneous income - Held that: - as regards, wrong claim of input tax credit is concerned, the petitioner made a specific request for furnishing of statement on monthly basis and also invoice-wise break-up in respect of the suppliers concerned. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner could have sought for details is incorrect, as they have already sought for the details.
So far as Form WW, which was produced by the petitioner appended along with the audited financial statement, is concerned, the respondent termed the sale as a suppression on the part of the petitioner and confirmed the proposal. Such a finding is incorrect because the respondent should examine the correctness of the intra unit transfer and if it is really an intra unit transfer, then the question of sale does not arise. Therefore, the observation with regard to Form WW and the audited statement produced by the petitioner is incorrect.
With regard to sale of capital goods, the petitioner produced certificates from the buyer. According to the respondent, the certificate is defective, as the commodity code has not been properly mentioned. If there is a defect in the certificate, nothing prevented the respondent from returning the certificate for rectifying the errors, if any. This alone would be a reasonable procedure to be adopted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, foreclosing the petitioner's right without returning the alleged defective certificate is incorrect.
With regard to service income, the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has attached the required audited statement in respect of the sale of service - If, according to the respondent, the documents produced by the petitioner are insufficient, then an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to produce additional documents or explain whatever documents have been placed. Hence, the respondent should not have confirmed the proposal on the said head for the reasons given by him in the impugned assessment orders.
With regard to miscellaneous income, the petitioner provided break-up details of miscellaneous income stating that they are from DGFT drawback claim provision and creditors write off and with regard to sale of scrap, they had indicated the amount and shown that they had already paid tax at 5%. However, the respondent confirmed the proposal under the said head by stating that the details furnished by the petitioner are also taxable categories and hence, confirmed the proposal. It is not clear as to how the respondent has brought the drawback claim within the taxable category. This finding is devoid of reasons.
The findings rendered by the respondent on the above five issues are incorrect and not tenable - this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment orders on the above indicated five issues and remit the matters back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal passed against rectified order of assessment - Revision of assessment - non submission of C-Forms and dis-allowance of exemption on the aspect of export sale - Held that: - Similar issue was tested by this Court in the case of P.C.W.Castings Private Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Nandambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai and another [2016 (12) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where the appeal was presented against a rectified order of assessment. This Court has set aside the impugned order thereon and directed the authority to hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.
The only conclusion that could be arrived at is to hold that the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's appeals are not sustainable - the second respondent is directed to take on file the appeal petitions, hear the parties and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment proceedings - petitioner contended that the rate of tax adopted in the assessment orders is erroneous as the notification dated 05.03.1997 read with notification dated 07.04.1998 issued under Section 8(5) and Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 were not taken into consideration - Held that: - what was required to be done by the assessing officer is to consider the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 55 of the Act, examining as to whether the notification sought to be relied upon is applicable to the case of the petitioner and whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record. The scope of powers under Section 55 of the TNGST Act is not to review an order passed by it and the requirement being that the error should be apparent on the face of the record to be rectified.
The writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
|
