Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

NEEL OIL INDUSTRIES Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND 2

2016 (7) TMI 120 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre-deposit - Input tax credit - petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer had not given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the order of Assessing Officer was passed in great hurry. In any case, there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner's transactions with Diamond Oil Industries were bogus. Merely because Diamond Oil Industries did not reflect its full sales to the petitioner in the tax returns, would not automatically imply that the petitioner had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g that the petitioner shall deposit 30 per cent of the principal tax with interest excluding penalty. - Decided partly in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6184 of 2016 - Dated:- 24-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : UCHIT N SHETH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Hardik Vora, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 8.12.2015 passed by Gujarat Value .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orth ₹ 5.104 crores during such period from Diamond Oil Industries Pvt.Ltd on which the petitioner had claimed input tax credit of ₹ 2.55 crores. The Assessing Officer tried to cross-check such sales made by Diamond Oil Industries, but did not receive reply from the assessing authority of the said seller. The Assessing Officer of the petitioner therefore, checked online returns filed by Diamond Oil Industries and found that ex-facie returns were replete with errors. He noted that Dia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd raised a tax demand of ₹ 2.55 crores with interest of ₹ 2.04 crores. He also imposed penalty of ₹ 1.27 crores and raised a total demand of ₹ 5.87 crores. 3. The petitioner challenged this order of assessment by filing Appeal. The appellate authority asked the petitioner to deposit 30 per cent of the entire demand by way of predeposit. Against said order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeal since the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ogus. Merely because Diamond Oil Industries did not reflect its full sales to the petitioner in the tax returns, would not automatically imply that the petitioner had not made such purchases or not paid corresponding tax. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that defects are glaring. The petitioner claimed to have made purchases from Diamond Oil Industries, whereas in the returns filed, Diamond Oil Industries has declared a total sale turn over of ₹ 24.38 cr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etitioner during the year 2010-2011 could not be reflected in the books of account and were therefore, not reported in the sale register and in turn, not shown in the periodical returns filed under VAT Act. In fact, going by this letter on which the petitioner itself relies, said Diamond Oil Industrie's stand appears to be that none of the sales made to the petitioner were reflected in the registers and correspondingly in the returns filed under the Act. Thus, quite apart glaring features of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Atmaram N Patel working as director in Diamond Oil Industries Pvt.Ltd. Having its office at summer palace Vilas Mandal, Ashram road, Ahmedabad do solemnly state and affirm as under: 2. Our company had sold goods i.e. Oil to M/s. Neel Oil Industries Kadi of R. 510440802/- during the year 201-11 and issued Tax invoices and also charged VAT separately. The company had also received the payment of goods from M/s. Neel Oil Industries. The sales made to M/s. Neel Oil Industries Kadi were reflected in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version