Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax 2018 2018 2018 (1) VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 65 of 65 Records

• 2018 (1) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Rate of tax - sale of scientific equipments to educational institutions - Held that: - This very issue was considered by this Court in the case of Tvl. Consolidated Engineering Services v. The Commercial Tax Officer [2016 (6) TMI 1273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the Court after taking into consideration the earlier decision, has allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the authority for re-doing the assessment.

  Matter is remanded back to the respondent to take note of the decision in the above referred case and extend the concessional rate of tax to the petitioner, by re-doing the assessment for the relevant year.

  ---

• 2018 (1) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Sales effected to exporters in the auction center - exemption u/s 5(3) of the CST Act, 1956 - rejection on the ground that they have not complied with G.O.Ms.876 dated 29.07.1982 - Held that: - Identical 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 the production of certificates as per the notification dated 29.07.1982, would be required only in cases where the tea brokers are not registered - The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent and also on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Coonoor. M/s.Tea Serve issued certificates to the petitioner as to the nature of sale effected and payment of tax made to the sales tax authorities.

  The matter is remanded to the first respondent for redoing the assessment in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (1) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery proceedings - section 44(1)(B) of the GVAT Act, 2003 - attachment of petitioner's stock - Held that: - no hearing is yet granted by the first appellate authority on the appeal and stay application though the same were filed on 16.11.2017. Thus, the impugned notice is issued on 22.11.2017 after a week despite the fact that the appeal and stay application were pending for hearing. It is not the case of the respondents that the same are not heard because of any fault attributed to the petitioner-Company - The respondent authorities should have restrained themselves from directing the Bank to deposit an amount of ₹ 15,72,74,830/- from the account held by the petitioner-Company towards recovery of the demand based on the assessment order dated 18.08.2017 till the hearing of the appeal and stay application of the petitioner - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2018 (1) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant waiver of pre-deposit for admission of appeal and grant of stay against recovery of dues?

  Held that: - there is nothing to indicate any complicity on the part of the appellant in filing the manual revised return with a view to defraud the Government. Even in the charge-sheet filed after conclusion of the investigation, there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant and on the contrary, the proprietor and his son are shown as witnesses. In this background, when the additions have been made on the basis of such fraudulent revised return showing huge sales while the regular returns filed by the appellant were of sales of much less volume, it cannot be gainsaid that if the appellant is not involved in the fraud, it is by and large a dealer working on a small scale and having an annual turnover of rupees ten to twenty lakh and consequently, would not be in a position to pay even a fraction of the tax, penalty and interest, as assessed on the basis of the sales shown in the revised returns.

  Having regard to the fact that there is not even a whisper of an allegation against the appellant insofar as the commission of fraud by filing revised return is concerned, at least for the purpose of waiver of pre-deposit the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of doubt and permitted to prosecute the appeal without saddling it with the onerous liability of making pre-deposit of amounts beyond its capacity. Considering the backdrop of the case, this court is of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in not granting complete waiver in payment of pre-deposit to the appellant.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2018 (1) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Principles of Natural Justice - the petitioner appears to have misplaced both the orders and thereafter obtained certified copies of the same and came up with the above writ petitions - Held that: - In view of the admitted position that SCN was served on the petitioner and that even the orders of assessment were served on the petitioner, the case cannot strictly come under the category of denial of reasonable opportunity. But at the same time, it is seen from the order of assessment that when an audit was conducted, the petitioner had cooperated - the petitioner can be given one opportunity, despite their own follies - petition allowed.

  ---

1234