|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 629 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 955
Principles of Natural Justice - validity of Penal Interest Order and Penalty Order - tax payments were made belatedly by the petitioner - periods April, 2016 to June, 2016, September, 2016, October, 2016 and December, 2016 to March, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent passed the impugned orders on 21.08.2020 levying both penal interest and penalty by separate Proceedings without considering the objections by merely stating that the contention of the petitioner is not considered. There is no discussion about the detailed objections filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2019 or reply dt.27.12.2019 - Since there is non-consideration of the objections dt.21.11.2019 or reply dt.27.12.2019 filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dt.01.11.2019, the impugned Penalty Order as well as Penal Interest Order cannot be sustained.
The matters are remanded to the 1st respondent to consider the objections dt.21.11.2019 and 27.12.2019 filed by the petitioner, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 954
Principles of Natural Justice - Concessional rate of tax - sale of the used motor vehicles - case of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted, except permission to file reply, even the rate of tax as per Section 6(1) of the KVAT has not been charged properly - HELD THAT:- Discretion by warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be always exercised in case, on perusal of the impugned order, prima facie, it is established to be without jurisdiction or non- adherence to the principles of natural justice. But the argument of counsel representing the petitioner is apparently not tenable on plain perusal of the impugned order as not only the reply was ordered to be given on 28.02.2020 even the Assistant Manager of the petitioner also appeared and he argued the matter as noticed in the impugned order. There is no such assertion in the writ petition with regard to that. The aforementioned order is appealable under Section 55 of the erstwhile KVAT Act, 2003.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 907
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining 'C' forms under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/S. DHANDAPANI CEMENT PRIVATE LTD., M/S. TERU MURUGAN BLUE METAL VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER & COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST) TERRITORIAL, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) [2019 (2) TMI 1850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein the identical issue as arising before me has been considered and decided holding that Upon enquiry with the Assessing Authorities, they have been informed that the benefit of the decision in M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) [2018 (10) TMI 1529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Ltd can be extended only to those dealers in that are party to the decision. This stand is unacceptable in so far as the decision of this Court as well as other High Courts, one of which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, are decisions in rem, applicable to all dealers that seek benefit thereunder, of course, in accordance with law.
The State has, after the date of the above order, filed a Writ Appeal challenging the decision in the case of Ramco Cements (Supra) that has been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 09.03.2020. Though she submits that the State intends to file further appeal order dated 09.03.2020 prevails as on date.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 861
Recall Petition - validity of sale notices - HELD THAT:- The assessment order itself attained its finality and writ petition, which was filed challenging the assessment order, was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2016 itself, there is no reason to interfere with the sale notices only on the plea that a recall petition was filed by the petitioner for recalling of order of Writ Court dated 19.10.2016, which was filed on 05.03.2019. The said recall petition itself reflects that it was verified on 07.05.2018. The law is settled that one who slumbers over his right may not claim any equity also. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 860
Principles of Natural Justice - case of petitioners is that that the Assessing Officer, who is a Quasi Judicial Authority, has not independently applied his mind while dealing with the impugned proceedings, but had adopted the averments and proposals of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities, who are their higher authorities - HELD THAT:- In view of the Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai, all the impugned proceedings in these batch of Writ Petitions, which proceeds on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC, are set aside and consequently, the matters are remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessees are granted liberty to file their objections with all supporting documents, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such objections, the Assessing Officer shall extend due opportunity of personal hearing to the Assessee/Representatives, if necessary through Video Conferencing and endeavor to conclude the assessment proceedings, atleast within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the objections.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 817
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining C-Form - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is entitled to the inclusion of ‘High Speed Diesel Oil’ as a commodity in the registration certificate. Let this exercise be carried out within a period of four (4) weeks from date of uploading of this order. The request of the petitioner for issuance of ‘C’ Forms is allowed as a consequence thereof.
Issue decided in the case of M/S. DHANDAPANI CEMENT PRIVATE LTD., M/S. TERU MURUGAN BLUE METAL VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER & COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST) TERRITORIAL, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) [2019 (2) TMI 1850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that benefit is allowed.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 816
Scope of Section 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act - allegation that the petitioners had claimed ITC while effecting local sales of food and drinks, they would fall under Section 7(1)(a) - whether the Department was right in bringing the petitioners, which are Hotels, of non-star category, under the purview of Section 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, on the ground that they have claimed the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
HELD THAT:- Perusal of the Act clearly reveals that while Section 7(1)(a) applies to Star Hotels, Section 7(1)(b) would be made applicable for the Hotels, which are not under the Star Category . The distinction is very clear on a bare reading of the section itself. As such, the very basis on which the petitioner has been brought under the purview of Section 7(1)(a), is contrary to the provision.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that the petitioner had wrongly claimed ITC, the only option available to the Department would be to reverse the ITC as provided under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act. Such a submission is correct and proper. As such, if the respondent was of the view that the claim of ITC has been wrongly made, the only option available is to reverse such an ITC instead of bringing them under the purview of Section 7(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act. As such, the levy of tax under Section 7(1)(b) and the consequential penalty imposed, cannot be sustained. However, if the respondent is granted an opportunity to rework the issue by taking into consideration the observations made in this order, the ends of justice could be secured.
Matter are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 778
Levy of Entertainment Tax - “online booking charges” charged by a Cinema Hall Owner besides the “cost of ticket” for entry into the cinema hall and enjoy the entertainment in the form of a movie - HELD THAT:- It is well, say, settled legal position that unless all the following four components are satisfied and clearly defined, the levy of tax would fail viz., (i) taxable event; (ii) object of taxation; (iii) rate of taxation; (iv) measure or value on which rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. Unless all the four parameters are clear and unambiguous and uniformly applied to the taxable event chargeable under a taxation enactment, the levy is bound to fail.
Entertainment Tax was a State subject and before the said levy of Entertainment Tax being subsumed under the GST Laws enforced in the country with effect from 1 July 2017, was the payment for admission, which as per the definition given in the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, as amended from time to time in Section 3(7)(c) of the Act is that the payment should be necessary condition to be complied with for gaining entry into the place for entertainment - The payment made for any other purpose connected with such entertainment will be taxable under the said Act, only if the person concerned is required to make such payment as a condition for entry.
Obviously, the online booking charges or internet handling charges, as the name given by some other cinema theater owners is not a mandatory payment for gaining entry into the cinema hall. It is an additional payment for extra or other facility provided by the Cinema hall owner. With the advent of internet, much after the said enactment of 1939, even though amended from time to time, the said Act could not have provided for levy of tax on the service of internet provided by the cinema owner. The same could be a subject matter of levy of Service Tax by the Parliament in the erstwhile law regime, prior to GST, with effect from 1 July 2017. But the Entertainment Tax being a tax collected by State for the Local Administration or Municipal Administration, is leviable only on cost of ticket which entitles a person to gain entry into the cinema hall or theatre.
There is considerable force in the submission made by Mr.Easwar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Unless such internet charges or online booking charges are uniformly charged from all the customers for having entry into the cinema hall, such extra service charges taken by the cinema owner to the extent of ₹ 30/- per ticket could not be made subject matter of Entertainment Tax. Even though such payment along with the cost of ticket at the rate of ₹ 190.78 in particular illustration, was part of the overall cost to the customer. The test is attending the entertainment or continuing to attend the entertainment. The mandatory requirement to fall within Section 3(7)(c) of the Act is that a person is required to make, as a condition to attend or continue to attend the entertainment - the words in the clause 3(7)(c) of the Act, “any payment for any purpose whatsoever connected with an entertainment”, in addition to the payment for any for admission to entertainment in clause “(c)”, will have to be read in conjunction and not without the context of the words, “which a person is required (mandatorily) to make as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the entertainment”.
These words are not superfluous or without meaning and in fact, they provide the bedrock condition for applying Section 3(7)(c) of the Act. Unless such a conditional payment for any purpose is integrally connected with the “entertainment” is uniformly and mandatorily chargeable from all, who want to have entry in the place of cinema hall, in our opinion, Section 3(7)(c) cannot cover such payment made by the customer, for availing the facility of online booking of tickets.
The measure of taxation, viz., the ticket cost of ₹ 190.78 for both the types of customers could only be held exigible to the Entertainment Tax. ₹ 30/- separately paid for online booking facility, is not sine qua non for having entry in the cinema hall and therefore, falls outside the scope of the term, 'payment for admission', defined in Section 3(7)(c) of the Act - Assessee has paid Service Tax under Finance Act 1994 on such 'online booking charge' for the period from 01.07.2012. The Assessing Authority has also dealt with the definition of Section 3(7)(c) of the Act and has emphasized the words “any payment for any purpose in addition to the payment for admission to the entertainment”. The said reassessment order was passed exercising the powers under Section 7(2) of the Act 1939, and the Assessing Authority not only imposed tax at the rate of 30% on the online booking charges to the extent of ₹ 41,96,277/- but imposed penalty @ 150% under Section 7(3) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 62,94,416/- vide Assessment order dated 21 September 2015, for AY 2010-11.
The said reassessment orders for all the years in question for AY 2007-08 to 2014-15 (upto December 2014) cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed - Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 728
Violation of principles of natural justice - recovery of TDS - Service of notice - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in any manner because the allegation of breach of principles of natural justice made by the Assessee has already been found in favour by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order passed by setting aside the order dated 9.2.2017 which was passed after the Show Cause Notice dated 1.9.2016 - When challenge was raised before the learned Single Judge, the Petitioner/Assessee was able to satisfy the learned Single Judge that the notice and the impugned order were never served on the Assessee and therefore, opportunity of hearing was not given to the Assessee.
Since the matter has been remanded back to the Assessing Authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee on this ground, there is no reason to interfere with the said order, which is essentially in favour of the petitioner only. Apparently, the remand order is only for looking into the issue of TDS made by the Assessee and deposit or recovery thereof - the Assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Authority in the first instance on 21.10.2020 at 11.00 am and further it is directed that the Assessing Authority to pass appropriate orders after hearing the Assessee as early as possible, preferably within one month thereof.
-
2020 (10) TMI 727
Payment of tax at compounding rate - alleged suppressed sale - Section 3(4) of the TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Section 3(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, (Fourth Amendment) Act 2011, enables the dealer to pay tax for a year on his turnover relating to taxable goods upto ₹ 50 lakhs at 1% and for the sales turnover over and above ₹ 50 lakhs, he is liable to pay tax under Section 3(2). The aforesaid amendment came into effect from 01.04.2012 and a bare reading of the provision explicitly permits the dealer to pay tax at the compounded rate of 1% under Section 3(4) for the sales turnover below ₹ 50 lakhs and for the turnover that exceeds ₹ 50 lakhs, they are liable to pay tax under Section 3(2) of the TNVAT Act. In view of the amendment, the respondent may not be justified in bringing the dealer out of the purview of Section 3(4) of the Act, as and when it is found that the sales turnover of the dealer exceeds ₹ 50 lakhs and thereby, subject them to the rate of tax under Section 3(2) for the “entire sales turnover”.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent herein for reconsideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 633
Rectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - it is the contention of the petitioner that the assessment was completed against him by making huge additions on account of non-filing of audit report in Form 13 & 13A - HELD THAT:- The reasoning of the assessing authority in Ext.P7 order is legally flawed. While it may appear at first blush that what the petitioner was seeking was essentially a review of the assessment order, in the light Ext.P2 judgment that was passed by this Court as early as in 2014 and which has not been the subject matter of any appeal before the Supreme Court, the assessing authority has to be seen as having ignored a binding precedent while completing the assessment. The said mistake occasioned by the assessing authority has therefore to be seen as an error apparent on the face of the record, which could be corrected through a rectification of mistake application. This is more so because there is no lengthy argument to be advanced by the assessee for the purposes of pointing out the apparent mistake that was occasioned by the assessing authority.
The writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders on merits in the rectification of mistake application, taking note of the observations in this judgment, and after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2020 (10) TMI 632
Levy of tax within the state - Interstate sale or an interstate works contract? - transaction carried out by the respondent-assessee, pursuant to a contract entered into with M/s.KMC Construction Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The works contract executed by the respondent-assessee is an interstate works contract and the State of Kerala, merely for the reason that the plant was erected within the State, cannot levy tax on the transfer of goods in the form of goods or in any other form by accretion of such goods in the works; when the goods were sourced from abroad and another state, the latter of which was taxed in the State from which the purchase was made.
The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 576
Non-speaking order - allegation that the respondent No.2, without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner in its reply, proceeded to pass a non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Chintan Dave could not justify in any manner that the impugned order is a reasoned order or that it was not a non-speaking order - Law is well settled that a non-speaking order suffers from arbitrariness which goes to the root of the matter and as such, alternative remedy may not come in the way of this Court in entertaining this petition.
The impugned order dated 3rd June, 2020 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 366
Non independent application of mind by AO - Proceeding made on the basis of the Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals proceeded from the Enforement Wing or from ISIC Authorities - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer has to independently consider the same, without being influenced by such proposals of the higher officials.
Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai had issued Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019, empowering the Assessing Authority to deviate from the proposals, without seeking for approval from the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities. AO can independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials. See Madras Granites (P) Ltd. [2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Narasus Roller Flour Mills Vs. Commercial Tax Office, (Enforcement Wing), Sankagiri and another [2015 (4) TMI 361 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
All the impugned proceeding in the present Writ Petition, which proceeds on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC, is set aside and consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessee is granted liberty to file his objections with all supporting documents, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
-
2020 (10) TMI 315
Requirement of pre-deposit - Is it necessary to consider the merit of the matter while making interim order - direction to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand and interest along with 5% of disputed penalty involved in the appeal pending before it, for the year 2008-09 - Legality of the interim (impugned) order passed by the Tribunal, having regard to the wording of section 76(4) of the Act and the law governing the stay of recovery of tax during the pendency of appeals.
HELD THAT:- The first proviso to Section 76(4), gives discretion to the Tribunal to entertain an appeal against an assessment order, without payment of whole or part of the amount in dispute, on the furnishing of security by the Appellant. First and foremost, we must give due regard to the fact that the proviso in question, conferring power to the Tribunal for dispensation, is legislated to be an exception. The main provision puts an obligation on the Tribunal to not entertain an appeal against an assessment order, unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the disputed amount. This makes the payment of the disputed amount a mandatory condition for entertaining an appeal - The objective behind the requirement of recording of reasons is that it would disclose the rationale of the authority and ensure that exercise of power is not done arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons. It will also ensure that the superior court, while exercising judicial scrutiny, is able to examine whether the tribunal has applied its mind and also discerned if the satisfaction arrived at has reasonable nexus to the facts and the law involved in the case.
The guiding principles for grant of stay order, pending disposal of a matter before the concerned forum, have been well-entrenched by way of several judicial pronouncements. It is a settled principle of law that the Courts must consider the prima facie merits of the case, the balance of convenience, and the possibility of causing irreparable injury to the parties, while considering an application for grant of stay. However, the revenue contends that the wording of the statute is water-tight and requires the Tribunal to insulate itself from the above, while exercising its discretion for dispensation of the pre-deposit amount. We do not agree.
The Supreme Court in MEHSANA DIST. CO-OP. MILK PU. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2003 (3) TMI 113 - SC ORDER], had remanded the case to the Appellate Authority, on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind, gave unsatisfactory reasons, and focused only on prima facie balance of convenience without addressing the prima facie merits of the case, in the impugned order.
It can be concluded that the prima facie merits of the case are an important factor to be taken into account at the stage of deciding a stay application. The first proviso of Section 76(4) of the Act gives the discretion to the Appellate Tribunal to dispense with the requirement of a pre-deposit. The provision is widely worded and does not put any fetter or constraint on the Tribunal. The prima facie view of the merits of the matter is one of the cornerstones of any application seeking dispensation of the pre-deposit. No application for dispensation can be decided devoid of an inquiry into the demonstrable merits of the case. Supreme Court, too, has disapproved the approach of deciding the stay application without analysing the factual scenario involved in a particular case. If an Appellant has a strong prima facie case and on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised completely lacks foundation, this aspect of the matter has to be necessarily considered by the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the application under Section 76(4) of the Act.
The discretionary power is not to be exercised as a matter of course. It is only in such cases where the Tribunal would find that there is a very strong prima facie case made out in its favour, should the Tribunal consider whether to grant stay and dispense with the pre-deposit in terms of Section 76(4) of the Act. On the face of it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the entire purpose of the appeal would be frustrated or rendered meaningless by allowing the recovery proceeding to continue during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal also has to be mindful of the consequences that would follow from an order that required the Assessee to deposit the whole or part of the demanded amount. While exercising this discretion, the Tribunal should not act in a mechanical manner and exercise discretion after taking into account the totality of circumstances which include the prima facie case of the Appellant.
In the present case, the Tribunal has declined to go into the merits of the case. The prima facie case of the Appellant has not been evaluated by the Tribunal while exercising its discretion under Section 76(4) of the Act. The Appellant had pleaded strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit, on the several grounds - all the aspects enumerated above are pertinent. Unfortunately, the same have not been taken into consideration. While the Tribunal is correct in observing that these questions would have to be examined when the appeals are taken up finally on for disposal, but at the same time, these aspects would also have to be cursorily examined for arriving at the satisfaction about the prima facie on merits, for deciding the stay application.
Let the matter be remanded back to the DVAT Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal shall now decide the application under Section 76(4) of the Act afresh, having regard to the views expressed by us in this order, after affording opportunity to both the parties for hearing - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 314
Prayer for stay of interim order - cancellation of registration certificate of petitioner - petitioner had not sold any of the products covered by the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 during the relevant period - HELD THAT:- The decision in the case of Carpo Power Limited [2018 (4) TMI 146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is applicable to the facts of the present case where it was held that
Also, Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court holding that there was no legal and valid ground for interference.
There shall be stay of the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 till the returnable date and as a consequence respondents are directed to issue the necessary ‘C’ forms on the basis of the registration certificate - Stand over to 27.10.2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 298
Condonation of delay in filing second appeal - no sufficient cause shown for delay - HELD THAT:- The delay is to an extent of 329 days. The reason assigned is that the copy of the impugned order was served to the junior staff of the senior advocate for further course of action by the authorized representative of the assessee. Thereafter, the file went missing. Later on, when the representative of the company intended to know what has happened to the matter, then they searched the file and it was found - there are no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed. The assessee is a joint stock company and is involved in various activities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reason assigned by them does not constitute sufficient cause. On considering the reasons, the explanation offered by the assessee-company constitutes sufficient cause.
Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in a catena of judgments that the delay should not come in the way of doing substantial justice between the parties.
Revision disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 215
Rejection by respondent authorities of petitioner’s request for correction of the return filed for first quarter of Year 2017-18 - refusal to give statutory forms under Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Consequently, this Court directs the respondent no.2 to allow the amendment sought by the petitioner in its return of first Quarter for the Financial Year 2017-18. However, this direction shall remain suspended till the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, taken note of hereinabove, are decided and this direction shall abide by the decision that the Supreme Court renders.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 212
Principles of Natural Justice - Levy of Turnover Tax - rate of tax - SCN proposed to tax the turnovers pertaining to certain transactions at higher rate of tax of 14.5% alleging that the transactions are inter- State transactions, and are not supported by any documentary evidence / statutory forms - opportunity of hearing not provided to petitioner - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned assessment order passed by the 1st respondent indicates that there are no reasons contained in the said order except that it is recorded that petitioner did not avail personal hearing and did not respond to the show-cause notice or the reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 or the final notice dt.06.03.2020 - There is no consideration by the 1st respondent of the legal contention raised by the petitioner that the said commodity being dealt with by the petitioner in the course of its business is exempted from tax under Section 7 of the Act read with Entry 47(b) of Schedule I thereof and that there is no statutory requirement of submission of statutory forms for claiming exemption - It is not in dispute that there is no provision for service of notice on the assesses through e-mail, and it is not the case of the respondents that the alleged reminder notice dt.16.11.2019 and final notice dt.06.03.2020 were sent in the manner indicated in the Rules framed under the Act and were served on the petitioner.
There has been a violation of principles of natural justice, and that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity to defend itself in the proceedings contended by the 1st respondent - the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 210
Classification of goods - lever files made of cardboards - whether taxable under the Residuary Entry No.40, Part-B of the First Schedule of the TNGST Act or under Section Entry 40(iv) of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, which is taxable at 10%? - HELD THAT:- The lever files dealt with by the petitioner, which also contains print, would squarely fall under the Entry 40(iv). The reasoning of the respondents that printing of just a few words alone in the file is unacceptable, since the Entry does not define what the nature of print should be. Moreover, when other materials like folders and file covers have been brought under the purview of Entry 40(iv), the claim by the respondents that lever files made of cardboards has to be brought under the Residuary Entry under 40 Part (B) is far-fetched. The intention of the legislature while bringing them in certain categories of goods under Entry 40(iv) alone requires to be seen and I am of the view that when 'folders and file covers', which carries certain prints are brought under 40(iv), 'lever files made of cardboards' with some print on it, will also squarely fall under the same Entry.
Thus, the commodity “lever files made of cardboards” with any print on it, will fall under Entry 40(iv) of the First Schedule of the TNGST Act - petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
