|
Advanced Search Options
VAT and Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 100 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1323
Levy of sales tax or service tax - brand franchisee fees - whether sales tax is leviable on the assessee on the amount received by the assessee as "brand franchisee fees" from CBUs (Contract Bottling Units) in case of manufacture of beer? - Held that: - the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Karnataka v. United Breweries Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 754 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] for the reasons recorded in the order has found that no sales tax would be leviable on the assesseeon the amount received by the assessee as "brand franchisee fees" from the CBU in case of manufacture of beer - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1322
Compensation for death of the deceased - award amount - Held that: - it is apparently clear that the jeep driver was set at fault and the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and fixed the liability on the driver of the jeep and this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the said conclusion.
This Court finds that it is reasonable and just compensation and no interference is required in this appeal and hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1273
Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10 passed by the 1st respondent - Held that: - the issue involved in the Writ Petition is mismatch and such issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer [2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. This Court, in the said decision, has directed the Assessing Officer to evaluate a centralised mechanism exclusively to deal with the cases of mismatch and to do some exercise, before issuing a notice.
The Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment - the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1272
Incentive schemes for setting up new and expansion of such industries - interim stay of assessment order - Held that: - Before the writ Court, appellant has not filed counter affidavit. Before us, respondent has brought fresh facts and supporting documents. Parties are at liberty to raise appropriate pleadings before the writ Court with supporting documents - Before the writ Court, the respondent had the benefit of interim stay of assessment order dated 27.08.2015. Inasmuch as the order made in W.P.No.30426 of 2015, is set aside, interim order made in MP No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.30426 of 2015, stands restored.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1271
Demand of Interest - cancellation of the deferral agreement entered into the petitioner with the 3rd respondent - Held that: - the first payment of ₹ 15,00,000/- has been paid well before the cancellation of the agreement and the second instalment has been paid on 13.04.2007 well before the pre-emptive date viz., 22.09.2008, had the deferral agreement been in force - the interest payable by the petitioner shall be only from the date of cancellation of the agreement viz., 24.01.2007 till the date of payment viz., 13.04.2007.
The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent to levy interest for the period from 24.01.2007 to 13.04.2007 - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1270
Principles of Natural Justice - ROM application rejected by an non-speaking order - Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that: - When orders have been passed in the rectification petitions, setting aside the same, with the above directions, the contention of the appellant that the writ Court should have set aside the assessment orders, dated 29.11.2013 also, cannot be accepted.
From the grounds, it could be deduced that the appellant requires this Court to do the exercise, as to whether, inclusion of purchase turnover in the assessment for years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively, is correct or not, which exercise has been directed to be done by the assessing officer.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1269
Imposition of penalty u/s 51(7) of the PVAT Act - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 51(7) of the PVAT Act can be imposed merely for non-declaration of goods at ICC when no deficiency has been pointed out in the documents accompanying the goods? - Held that: - Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has not been able to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are illegal or perverse or are based on misreading of evidence on record warranting interference by this Court. He has also not been able to produce any material to substantiate its claim made in the appeal - no substantial question of law arises - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1220
Kerosene intended for the manufacture of LAB - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Held that: - Though it is true that no specific date is mentioned as to when this order came to the knowledge of the Government, that by itself cannot be a ground for holding that they were not entitled to condonation of delay or that the findings given by the MSTT in its order dated 9th September, 2014 either suffer from perversity or any patent illegality. If one takes into consideration the exclusion of the period of 60 days, then, there was only a delay of 9 and đ months in filing the Appeal. Considering that the facts of this case were peculiar and which has not only been recorded in the order but also admitted by RIL and BPCL, we do not think that the discretion exercised by the MSTT in condoning the delay was unjustified.
Competency of the officer on special duty (OSD) to file an appeal on behalf of the State of Maharashtra - Held that: - The Commissioner, being a quasi judicial authority, speaks through his DDQ order passed under Section 52 of the BST Act. This being the case, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the appeal. His order is only under scrutiny and examination of the MSTT and beyond that the Commissioner is not required to and nor can he state anything more than what has already been stated by him in his DDQ order - we do not find that the MSTT was at all wrong when it came to the conclusion that it was competent to entertain the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary (Finance) through Shri Shashank D. Mathane, officer on Special Duty, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra. We must also note that Article 154 of the Constitution of India clearly stipulates that the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. When one reads Article 154 with the Rules of Business made by the Governor of Maharashtra along with the decision of the Government of Maharashtra to prefer the Appeal, we are left with no doubt that the MSTT was fully justified in entertaining the Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra - the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department and which was signed by Shri Shashank D. Mathane (OSD) was competent and correctly entertainable by the MSTT.
The supply of Superior Kerosene [KO (LABFS)] by BPCL to RIL under the Agreement dated 24th August, 1992 itself was not a sale, and therefore, there was no question of there being a “sales return” - Held that: - the first leg of the transaction was clearly a sale of Kerosene, namely KO (LABFS), by the BPCL to RIL - answered in favor of Revenue.
The “return stream” of Kerosene (from RIL to BPCL) is only a “sales return” as contemplated under the provisions of the BST Act and not a sale from RIL to BPCL - Held that: - The word “sale” has been defined in Section 2(28) to mean a Sale of goods made within the State for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and include any supply by a society or club or an association to it members on payment of a price or of fees or subscription, but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge, and the words “sell” “buy” and “purchase” with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly - the first leg of the transaction namely, supply of Kerosene by BPCL to RIL was held to be a sale and which had attained finality. The only question that had to be decided when the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Sales Tax was Question No.2 viz. “whether the return stream i.e. return of Kerosene by RIL to BPCL (sales return Credit note No. 147857 dated May 1, 1992) would be legally allowable as sales return or whether that return will amount to purchase of Kerosene by BPCL from RIL.” To only decide this question, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Whether the MSTT ought to have given prospective effect to its judgment as contemplated under section 52(2) of the BST Act? - Held that: - the MSTT was unjustified in not granting the prospective effect to its judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015. Considering the long checkered history of the litigation between the parties, the assessment orders allowed earlier on the basis that the return stream Kerosene was a sales return/goods return and the DDQ order passed in favor of the assessee dated 11th September, 2006, we feel that this was a fit case where the MSTT ought to have exercised its discretion and granted prospective effect to its judgment and order.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1219
Reversal of Input Tax Credit - interstate sale - Form C - penalty u/s 27(3) and 27(4) of the VAT Act - Held that: - the tribunal has held that surgical items purchased from interstate were not the same items purchased locally. Sale statement substantiated that interstate sales without C-Forms were made of corresponding interstate purchases - the claim of respondents is found to be acceptable based on the facts and as a result, we find no inconsistency in the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner in deleting the reversal along with penalty - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1218
Validity of assessment order - It is the case of the department that an investigation was conducted and as per the report submitted by the Investigation Officer tax invoices does not bear the name of the petitioners - Held that: - Merely for the reason that the petitioner’s name is shown as lessor in the tax invoice, it cannot be out rightly rejected to deny the input tax credit and create huge demands. No finding is given by the Prescribed Authority as to whether the tax invoices are in conformity with the Rules prescribed.
This court would not have interfered with the assessment or re-assessment orders allowing the assessee to circumvent the alternative remedy available under the Act but when the error is apparent on the face of the record or no reasons are assigned by the Authority for arriving at a decision it can be held that it is nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice.
It is imperative that decision making process is subjected to judicial review rather than the decision. In the circumstances, relegating the petitioner to Appellate Forum would not be appropriate in rendering the substantial justice. Hence this court is of the considered view that justice would be sub-served in remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority setting aside the impugned re-assessment order and demand notices.
The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority to re-do the re- assessment by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law in an expedite manner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1217
Liability under Section 3(4) of TNGST Act - Form XVII - export sale is neither a local sale nor an inter-state sale, the assessing officer arrived at the value of purchases made against Form XVII which were used in the manufacture of goods exported - Held that: - identical issue decided in the decision of this Court in Tube Investment of India Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010 (10) TMI 938 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Section 3(4) of the Act will have no application since situs of the export sales of the petitioners for the purpose of said Section was the State of Tamilnadu and by virtue of the said factual position, the applicability of Section 3(4) stands excluded for the exigibility of tax - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1216
Liability under Section 3(4) of TNGST Act - Form XVII - According to the Revenue, it was found that the respondent had purchased goods against Form XVII declarations and used the same, in the manufacture of goods, sold to a place outside the State - Held that: - identical issue decided in the decision of this Court in Tube Investment of India Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010 (10) TMI 938 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Section 3(4) of the Act will have no application since situs of the export sales of the petitioners for the purpose of said Section was the State of Tamilnadu and by virtue of the said factual position, the applicability of Section 3(4) stands excluded for the exigibility of tax - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1105
Principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - Held that: - Demand Notice being on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and not having been examined against that touchstone in writ petition, it appears just and expedient that such issues be examined at the first instance whether the subject Assessment Order and Demand Notice could be assailed on such grounds in the writ petition - the writ petitions are restored for consideration by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1104
Liability under Section 3(4) of TNGST Act - Form XVII - According to the Revenue, subsequently, it was found that the respondent had purchased goods against Form XVII declarations and used the same, in the manufacture of goods, sold to a place outside the State - Held that: - identical issue decided in the decision of this Court in Tube Investment of India Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010 (10) TMI 938 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Section 3(4) of the Act will have no application since situs of the export sales of the petitioners for the purpose of said Section was the State of Tamilnadu and by virtue of the said factual position, the applicability of Section 3(4) stands excluded for the exigibility of tax - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1103
Tax under the compounding scheme - The notice was on the ground that there could be no compounding applied for, for ice-creams which is not a cooked food.
Held that: - a penalty has been imposed along with the regular assessment made, which is not possible. The assessee made a bonafide attempt to be included under the compounding scheme on the reasonable presumption that “ice-creams” would also be “cooked food”. A vigilant officer could have rejected the application. The department was not vigilant but was also lethargic in so far as permitting the assessee to make remittances under the scheme for the subsequent year also when already notice was issued for cancellation of the compounding in the previous year. There can be no contumacious conduct found on the part of the asessee.
The assessing officer would issue fresh notice for assessment, and the assessee would be entitled to produce the purchase invoices for the two years, which shall be taken into account and the input tax credit allowed to the extent proved by invoices - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1102
Kara Samadhana Scheme of 2017 - Penalty - Held that: - the intention of the Revenue is to extend the benefit in respect of all kinds of penalties. Therefore, in our view, the expression ‘all kinds of penalties’ must be construed to include penalty imposed for delayed filing also. Therefore, it must be held as penalty ‘till the date of filing’.
Filing of return must be held as a process related to assessment. On this premise also, penalty imposed for delayed filing of returns must also be eligible for consideration under the Scheme. Therefore, any other interpretation would be incongruous.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1044
Levy of turnover tax - export sale - purchases of raw materials, against Form XVII - concessional rate of tax - violation of Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Held that: - reliance placed in the decision in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. TI Diamond Chain Ltd.) Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Commercial Tax Officer [2010 (10) TMI 938 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Section 3(4) of the Act will have no application since situs of the export sales of the petitioners for the purpose of said Section was the State of Tamilnadu and by virtue of the said factual position, the applicability of Section 3(4) stands excluded for the exigibility of tax.
Tax Case Revisions are dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1043
Issuance of C declaration Forms - pending government dues - unlocking the facility in the corresponding tax payer identification number and the general sales tax number - Penalty u/s 18(3) of the said Act - Held that: - the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to release the C Form declarations, to which, the petitioner is eligible - Simultaneously, there will be a direction to the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act Appellate Tribunal, Puducherry to take up for hearing the stay petition in I.A.No.1419 of 2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - this Court upheld the power of the respondent to withhold the C Form declarations, as the respondent is statutorily empowered to do so and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also upheld the said power - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1042
Validity of assessment order - TNGST Act - The impugned order appears to be a very reasoned order, but however, on a closer scrutiny, it is seen that upto paragraph-7, the assessing officer has verbatim repeated the proposal in the notice dated 04.04.2005, extracted the entire explanation given by the petitioner, and the finding rendered by the respondent is only in paragraph-8, that too a single line - Held that: - the stand taken in the impugned order that they are bogus dealers / bill traders, appears to be factually incorrect and inconsistent with the averments in the counter affidavit and in particular, paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit. The other paragraphs in the counter affidavit deals with the burden of proof and on whom it lies etc. A reference has been made to Sections 10(2) and 3(2) of the TNGST Act in this regard.
This Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings is wholly vitiated on account of total non-application of mind and being devoid of reasons.
The matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration who shall afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the third parties and after examining all the records, the respondent shall redo the assessment in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 979
Assessment of escaped turnover - Time limitation - whether the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act as amended from 01.04.2017, could be availed of by the competent authority for assessing the escaped turnover of the dealers under the Act for the year 2011-12? - Held that: - prior to the Finance Act, 2017, the time limit prescribed for initiating proceedings for assessing the escaped turnover of a dealer under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act was five years - The plain meaning of the words used in the third proviso to subsection (1) of the Act indicates beyond doubt that the period fixed for proceeding to determine the turnover of the dealers which has escaped assessment to tax, which expires on 31.03.2017, has been extended upto 31.03.2018, in terms of the said proviso. In the light of the said provision, the third respondent is certainly entitled to initiate proceedings for assessing the escaped turn over of the petitioner for the year 2011-12 before 31.3.2018.
Petition dismissed.
|
