|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 65 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 613 - SC ORDER
Review application - Amnesty Scheme - whether, in the present case, there has been any delegation of the said power which is vested in the Commissioner under the aforesaid clause 8? - Held that: - We have perused the Review Petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of order dated 04.10.2017 [2017 (10) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is made out - review petition dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 612 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the additional sales tax liability of an Agent, is independent of the liability of its principal?
Held that: - the petitioner's principal is situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu viz., in Andhra Pradesh, and they have no branch in the State of Tamil Nadu, and the petitioner is the direct agent of the principal, who is an assessee in Andhra Pradesh, and there is a consensus between the petitioner and the principal at Andhra Pradesh - the decision in the case of Siemens Ltd., [1998 (6) TMI 547 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case, where it was held that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the principal Act, namely Act 14 of1970 is ultra vires and should stand deleted. We make it clear that we are striking down only clause (a) of section 2(1). We also make it clear that under section 2 (2) and 2 (3) the intention of the legislature not to pass on the burden of additional sales tax to the consumers and the reference to prosecution, shall stand unaltered.
The matter is remanded to the third respondent/Assessing Officer, who shall redo the assessment in accordance with law.
-
2018 (1) TMI 611 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Inter-state sales - suppression - exemption - Held that: - Merely because the vehicles had moved from Mannargudi to the Container Corporation of India Ltd., there cannot be any interference that the vendor had effected interstate sales on the above, both the appellate authority and the Tribunal have recorded their concurrent findings that the vendor cannot be found fault with, but the buyer is the real culprit. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Courts should not interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact unless, on conclusion, by material on record, hold that there is perversity.
There is no merit in the contention of the writ petitioners nor there is any case to interfere, on the substantial questions of law, raised.
Tax Case Revision Petitions are dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 610 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty - issuance of sale invoice instead of tax invoice by seller - assessee was required to disclose the Tin Number and other details to the selling dealer and to purchase such materials only by way of tax invoice - case of revisionist is that since no advantage had been taken by it, no deliberate act can be attributed to it, and therefore penalty imposed is bad in law - Held that: - the Tribunal has clearly noticed the fact that there was no undue benefit gained by the assessee on account of issuance of sale invoice instead of tax invoice - In such circumstances, the act of purchasing dealer cannot be construed as a deliberate act so as to bring it within the clutches of section 54(1)(5) - penalty not sustained - revision allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 555 - SC ORDER
Input tax Credit - Constitutional validity of Section 9 (2) (g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 - Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India - failure to deposit VAT collected from its buyers, which included SCT - the decision in the case of On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd., Suvasini Charitable Trust, Arise India Limited, Vinayak Trexim, K.R. Anand, Aparici Ceramica, Arun Jain (HUF) , Damson Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Solvochem, M/s. Meenu Trading Co., & Mahan Polymers Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. & Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi And Ors. [2017 (10) TMI 1020 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 554 - SC ORDER
Classification of goods - NEBULA Jewellery Watch - whether fall under Entry 13(ii) of Schedule-II to the Value Added Tax Act or under Entry 87 of Second Schedule to the Act? - the decision in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT Versus M/s TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2017 (2) TMI 521 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that NEBULA Watch as NEBULA Jewellery Watch falling under Entry 13(ii) of Schedule II of the Act - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed on grounds of delay as well as on merits.
-
2018 (1) TMI 553 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Concessional rate of tax - sale or purchase of goods in inter-state trade or commerce - certificate of registration granted in Form 'B' - CST Act, 1956 - A declaration is sought in the writ petition that UPPTCL is entitled to be issued Form 'C' for the financial year 2010-11 to 2016-17, for the purchases to be effected for the contract work specified in Form 'B' at Unnao and Sirathu - An alternative prayer is also made to direct the UPPTCL to pay differential amount of tax, together with interest, in case it is found not entitled to Form 'C'.
Held that: - Admittedly, UPPTCL is the registered dealer to whom a certificate has been issued by the competent authority in Form 'B'. Such inter-state sales attract concessional rate of tax as per the description given in the Form. It is an admitted position that registration certificate issued to UPPTCL in Form 'B' subsists and has not been amended or cancelled, in terms of sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act. In such eventuality, the registered dealer (UPPTCL) is required to provide declaration, dully filled and signed by it to the selling dealer (writ petitioner) containing the prescribed particulars in prescribed form. Such declaration and certificate has to be made in form 'C' appended to the Rules of 1957. In its absence, normal rate of tax would have to be paid by the selling dealer. This would be impermissible once the inter-state sale is covered by sub-section (1) and (3) of section 8 and a certificate is already issued under Form 'B'.
Once a certificate has been issued by the competent authority, it was impermissible for the authorities to withhold issuance of certificate in Form 'C'.
Denial of Form 'C' to the UPPTCL despite the certificate issued in Form 'B' was wholly unwarranted and illegal yet, it would be appropriate to examine the matter from another aspect before concluding the discussions. The Commercial Tax Authorities have been of the opinion that 'power transmission' is not covered within the express terms of section 8(3)(b) of the Act of 1956. For arriving at such an opinion the provision itself has been taken note of and construed as being limited to 'generation or distribution of electricity' alone. While taking such view the authorities have not examined the expression occurring in the statute itself.
The tribunal has committed manifest error of law in upholding denial of Form 'C' to the revisionist, notwithstanding the fact that registration certificate issued in Form 'B' specifies levy of tax at concessional rate in respect of inter-state sale made for power transmission - A direction is also issued to the concerned authorities of the Department of Commercial Tax to issue Form 'C' to the revisionist in respect of items included in Form 'B', which are liable to be taxed under section 8(1) of the Act of 1956.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 459 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bail Application - offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 477(A), 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 85(1)(B)(C)(E)(F) and Section 85(2)(J), 85(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that: - by two different orders similarly situated accused have been admitted to anticipatory bail/bail (Criminal Misc. Application No. 11201 of 2017 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 17152 of 2017), the case for admitting the petitioner to bail in anticipation of his arrest is made out - the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety of the like amount on certain conditions - bail application allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 458 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - extended period of limitation - Section 38 of TNGST Act, 1959 - whether, this Court is empowered to condone the delay of the extendable period, wherein a specific time limit has been provided, for filing an appeal?
Held that: - In Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [2010 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by the Court to allow an appeal to be filed, under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 1963, after more than 120 days.
In Saradha Travels v. Commissioner of Service Tax [2014 (7) TMI 884 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], an appeal was filed with a delay of one year and six months. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Delay cannot be condoned - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - whether the respondent can be justified in holding that the petitioner has not opted to pay tax under Section 7-C of the TNGST Act? - Held that: - under the TNGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder, there is no separate form provided or any separate method provided for exercising the option to pay tax under Section 7-C of the TNGST Act. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the assessee by filing a return and paying tax under Section 7-C of the TNGST Act amounts to exercising option under the said provision. Thus, the respondent committed an error in holding that the petitioner did not exercise his option. Therefore, the first question is answered in favor of the petitioner and against the revenue.
Whether the respondent can re-open the assessment without there being a prior order from the Commissioner in accordance with Rule 15(5-B) of the TNGST Rules? - Held that: - on perusal of the original assessment order dated 29.05.2003, the respondent has clearly stated that such order is subject to random selection for detailed scrutiny under Section 12(1-A) of the TNGST Act. Thus, the respondent was fully aware that the assessment can be revised only subject to random selection under Section 12(1-A) of the TNGST Act. In order to effect such revision, the procedure under Rule 15(5-B) of the TNGST Rules have to be followed - decided against Revenue.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 403 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Reassessment - Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Rate of tax - inter-state sale - the appellant/writ petitioner produced ‘C’ Forms from its buyers, and it is on the said basis that the assessment was completed - Section 29 (4) of Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 - time limitation - Held that: - there is no power with the authorities to reassess, in the facts and circumstances of this case, for the reason that there is no order passed under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act - The fact that in the U.P. Act, there is no reference to Sections 25 and 26 in Section 29 may not, in our view, take away the power of the authorities to carry out the reassessment in the circumstances involved in this case.
The provision relating to Section 29(1)(c), which has, in fact, been adverted to in the order of the Commissioner, which is the basis for permitting reassessment would, in our view, endow the authorities to deal with the case at hand. Undoubtedly, the appellant/writ petitioner has been assessed at the rate of 1 per cent. If the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to the concessional rate available to the assessees fulfilling the requirements under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the assessees would have been assessed at the rate of 4 per cent, which is the rate, which is higher than the rate at which the appellant/writ petitioner has been assessed. Therefore, we cannot say that there was no power even prior to the amendment to deal with a case like the present case. Therefore, we do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the impugned order is bad for the reason that it was beyond his powers.
This is not a case where the order passed under Section 29(4) of the Act is bad for the reason that it was passed without giving any opportunity or there being no reason. In the notice, the Commissioner would state that a request has been sent by the Deputy Commissioner to authorize him under Section 29(4) of the Act and the reasons are as have been stated. In fact, there is no reference in this notice, to the notice, which he has already issued acting under Section 29(1) of the Act, namely, Annexure No. 3, dated 20.11.2015. Thereafter, we may notice the actual order, which has been passed under Section 29(4) of the Act - the aspect relating to the ‘C’ Forms and, finally, the order to do a reassessment under Section 29 of the Act being found justified and appropriate.
The Court, therefore, inter alia, took the view that it is not for the Tax Officer to hold an enquiry whether the goods specified in the certificate of registration can be used by him for any of the purposes mentioned in Form 'C', or that the goods purchased have, in fact, not been used - it is the Sales Tax Authority, who is competent to scrutinize the certificate to find out whether the certificate is genuine.
The Assessing Officer will necessarily apply his mind to the various contentions raised by the appellant/writ petitioner in regard to the ‘C’ Forms and will also decide the matter - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 402 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - there was no communication from the second respondent, in respect of his request for adjournment made vide letter dated 10.08.2017 and resultantly, the petitioner was not in a position to have a reasonable opportunity to make his submissions in the matter in terms of Section 27(2) of TNVAT Act - Held that: - When it was pointed out that the petitioner having not availed the opportunity provided by the second respondent, could not claim such equity without establishing how prejudice has been caused to him by the impugned orders - the impugned order is set aside in terms of aforesaid order dated 30.10.2014 in W.P(MD).Nos.28374 to 28377 of 2014 passed by this Court and proceedings are re-opened for fresh adjudication - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 340 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sale and purchase or manufacture of articles - taxability under UP. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Held that: - there is no provision under the 1948 Act which raises a presumption rebuttable or conclusive against the assessee merely on the basis of a trader or dealer being found in possession of articles which may be eligible to be traded in. A presumption, conclusive or rebuttable must necessarily flow from a specifically embodied statutory provision.
A careful reading of sub section (1) thereof establishes that if any facts are specially within the knowledge of the assessee, then in the course of assessment proceedings, the burden of proving those facts lies upon him. Similarly sub section (2) (b) which was also pressed into aid deals with the burden of proof in respect of existence of facts and circumstances on the basis of which the assessee claims exemption. Both under sub section (1) as well as sub section (2) (b), the burden stands placed or shifted upon the assessee in respect of special facts or circumstances upon which he claims exemption. These two provisions would clearly have no application in a case where the assessee was asserting that he was only processing the articles in question and not entering into any transaction of sale or purchase.
There was not a shred of evidence, cogent or reliable to establish and prove that the revisionist was engaged in the sale or purchase of commodities - levy and imposition of tax cannot be sustained.
Revision allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 339 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Taxability - transferring a right to use certain machinery items - Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax 1948 - Held that: - for the purposes of a levy of tax under Section 3-F, the presence of machinery within the State is not determinative. The taxable event which stands encompassed under section 3-F must and can only be a transfer of a right to use. The situs of such a transaction can only be the place where this right is transferred and conferred - Admittedly here the transfer of a right to use was effected outside the State of U.P. consequent to the execution of the lease agreement. The essential element of the levy, therefore, occurred outside the jurisdiction of this State. There was no element of a "transfer of a right to use" which occurred within this State.
The State of U.P. clearly, therefore, stood denuded of the right or authority to tax this transaction. In view thereof, the position taken by the respondent that the presence of the machinery or its consignment into the State would justify the imposition of tax is rendered unsustainable.
The levy of tax on the basis of a "transfer of a right to use" cannot be sustained.
Revision allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 292 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rate of tax - supplies effected to educational institutions established by the Government - whether taxable under Schedule II Part B at the rate of 5% as per the amended Commodities list under CTD portal? - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Consolidated Engineering Services Versus The Commercial Tax Officer [2016 (6) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Technomed Electronics and another Vs. CTO, Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle, and another [2009 (1) TMI 821 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the order, dated March 31, 2008 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle, disallowing the concessional rate of tax at five per cent on the sales to educational institutions is set aside.
Matter remanded back to the respondent to take note of the decision rendered in the above referred cases and extend the concessional rate of tax to the petitioner by redoing the assessment - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (1) TMI 291 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Works contract - hardware chemicals - rate of tax - Whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in allowing the appeal, setting aside the revision made by the Assessing Officer is legally correct or not? - Held that: - Though Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate, made submissions, and sought for reversal of the orders, passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-I, Chennai, and confirmed by the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the appellant has made out a case, for reversal - Revenue has not produced any contrary decision - Tax Case Revision Petition is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 247 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Registration of dealer - KVAT - casual dealer in Chicken - The petitioner's claim is that he is having business only to a turnover of less than ₹ 10 lakhs and he is not required to take registration - Held that: - Section 6 of the KVAT Act states that in the case of an importer or casual trader the turnover limit of ₹ 10 lakhs is not applicable. The petitioner, in any event, had to take out registration - revision dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 147 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rate of tax - Pre-painted Galvanized Steel Metal Sheets - whether taxable at the residuary rate of 14.5% under Section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the KVAT Act, 2003 or otherwise? - declared goods or not? - Held that: - it is open to the petitioner to seek requisite clarification from the Respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes himself with regard to the effect of clause (vi) of Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956 in the first instance - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 95 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund of excess tax under protest - unjust enrichment - Held that: - at the relevant time viz. for the period 1995–96 to 1999–2000 the petitioner had collected tax from its customers at the rate of 6% and paid the same. The excess amount was paid by the petitioner only in the year 2001 to avoid liability of interest and penalty. It cannot be gainsaid that in respect of sales made during the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000, the petitioner could not have recovered the additional tax from its customers and must have paid it out of its own funds. The question of unjust enrichment therefore, does not arise.
It is not the case by the respondent department that the petitioner Company had paid the differential amount in the years concerned but the same is paid during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the same as the respondent authorities have already, while considering the challans for the assessment year 1999-2000 has granted refund to the petitioner Company.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 94 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Production of Form C declaration - under what circumstances the respondent can exercise its power under Section 84 of TNVAT Act? - Held that: - The case on hand is one such case where the petitioner states that they are now in possession of the relevant declaration forms and if opportunity is granted, the petitioner would be able to produce the same - this Court is inclined to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to remedy the breach and produce the necessary documents - petition allowed by way of remand.
|
