9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 858 - HC - Indian LawsDemand of RTO Tax - RTO tax on the mobile crain - Held that - When the Government was the owner of the showel crowler crain upto 14.11.2006, it is not appreciable how the petitioner shall be liable to pay the RTO tax for the period between 1.8.1995 and 14.11.2006/20.11.2006. Under the circumstances, as such, the impugned order so far imposing the RTO tax upon the petitioner for the period between 1.8.1995 and 20.11.2006 cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, quashed and set aside. So far as the RTO tax liability for the period after 20.11.2006 is concerned, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had paid entire RTO tax with penalty and interest etc. from 20.11.2006. The aforesaid be considered by the appropriate authority and if it is found that any amount towards RTO tax, penalty and interest is paid by the petitioner for the period after 20.11.2006, the same may be given credit and/or adjusted from any amount found to be due and payable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Petitioner's challenge to the impugned order dated 9.10.2007 regarding RTO tax, penalty, and interest on a mobile crain. 2. Dispute over the liability of the petitioner to pay RTO tax for the period from 1.8.1995 to 31.3.2008. 3. Ownership history of the showel crowler crain in question and its impact on RTO tax liability. 4. Request for quashing and setting aside the impugned order and seeking appropriate adjustments for tax paid post-20.11.2006. 5. Refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 1 lac by the petitioner. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 9.10.2007, demanding payment of RTO tax, penalty, and interest on a mobile crain. The petitioner contended that no RTO tax was due as they acquired the crain in question on 20.11.2006 from Gujarat Scrap Traders, who purchased it from the State Government in an auction. The petitioner argued that until 14.11.2006, the Government owned the crain, exempting it from RTO tax. The court noted the ownership history and ruled that the petitioner cannot be held liable for RTO tax before 20.11.2006, quashing the order for that period. The court directed a review of tax liabilities post-20.11.2006, with adjustments if tax, penalty, or interest had been paid after that date. 2. The respondent, represented by Ms. Vacha Desai, relied on the impugned order without additional submissions. The court, after hearing both parties, emphasized the ownership transfer of the crain from the Government to Gujarat Scrap Traders and then to the petitioner. It found the demand for RTO tax pre-20.11.2006 unjustified and ordered its cancellation. The court instructed a review of post-20.11.2006 tax payments for potential adjustments, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The rule was made absolute, with no costs incurred. 3. Additionally, the court ordered the refund of Rs. 1 lac deposited by the petitioner as per an interim order. The amount, reported to be with the RTO Office in Bhavnagar, was to be returned promptly to the petitioner. The judgment provided clarity on the ownership timeline of the crain, the petitioner's tax liabilities, and the necessary actions to rectify the situation, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.
|
