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 →

M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others

2016 (10) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Reassessment under Section 29(7) of Act, 2008 - change of opinion - Eligibility Certificate under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - tax exemption for a period of ten years from 15.04.1999 to 14.04.1999 for ₹ 107,58,99,224/- modification in Eligibility Certificate - U.P. Act, 1948 was abolished on 31.12.2007 and U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 came into force with effect from 01.01.2008 - Rule 70(9) relied by respondent substituted on 28.02.2010 by U.P. Value Added Tax (Second Amendm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

different or divergent view is reached, it would tantamount to "change of opinion". If an assessing authority forms an opinion during the original assessment proceedings on the basis of material facts and subsequently finds it to be erroneous; it is not a valid reason under the law for reassessment. - Entire material which is now being taken into consideration for the purpose of impugned notice and approval granted was available before Assessing Authority and after having considered the sam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Respondent :- C.S.C., C.B.Tripathi ORDER 1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal and Ms. Sanyukta Agarwal, Advocates, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Notice issued under Section 29(7) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2008") and the approval granted for reassessment by Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated 15.07.2015 has been challenged on the ground that it is not a case of escaped assessment or under assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4.1999 to 14.04.1999 for ₹ 107,58,99,224/-. Subsequently, the Eligibility Certificate was modified by competent authority vide order dated 16.04.2002 allowing period of exemption for 15 years with effect from 15.04.1999 or for 200 per cent of ₹ 69,02,08,824/- whichever is earlier. It was again modified on 22.01.2005 for 200 per cent of ₹ 102,81,86,685/-. 4. U.P. Act, 1948 was abolished on 31.12.2007 and U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2008& .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t vide Commissioner's order dated 18.12.2012 whereby amount has been modified to ₹ 76,55,86,155. In fact, this amount has been mentioned after deducting benefit of exemption already availed by petitioner before 01.01.2008. 5. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, assessment order under Section 28 of Act, 2008 and Section 9(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956") was passed on 26.03.2012. Against said assessment order, petitioner has also filed an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, 2008"), Assessing Officer should have deducted the tax deposited by Assessee as well as input tax credit benefit. In other words, he has said that for the purpose of deducting amount of refund, it should have been computed by adding tax deposited by Assessee and input tax credit which he has received but the same was not done, therefore, it has been allowed exemption wrongly and it is a case of escaped assessment. 6. It is contended that Rule 70(9) relied by respondent-2 has been substit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

into existence in February' 2010 and therefore it is a case of change of opinion, since Assessment Officer passed order as per law as it then was, could not dispute that apparently it appears to be a case of change of opinion and, therefore, we do not find any justification to look into other grounds raised by petitioner. 8. It is not disputed before us that if there is a change of opinion, reassessment under Section 29(7) is not permissible. When it can be said "change of opinion" .....

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