|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 629 Records
-
2020 (9) TMI 641
Validity of assessment proceedings - allegation is that the impugned proceeding is made on the basis of the Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals proceeded from the Enforement Wing or from ISIC Authorities - HELD THAT:- Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 has empowered the Assessing Officers to henceforth independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials.
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 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.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (9) TMI 640
Restriction on Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Form W - June to September 2014 - Prior sufferance of Taxes - ITC on reversal on wastage - Ineligible claim of ITC on goods.
Restriction of the amount for prior sufferance of taxes - Assessing Officer was of the view that some of the sellers from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods had not paid tax to the Government - HELD THAT:- This issue has been dealt with in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , PRESENTLY THIRUVERKADU ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI VERSUS INFINITI WHOLESALE LTD. [2016 (9) TMI 1431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it has held that Input Tax Credit cannot be disallowed on the ground that the seller has not paid tax to the Government, when the purchaser is able to prove that the seller has collected tax and issued invoices to the purchaser. As such, restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit on this ground, cannot be sustained and requires re-consideration.
ITC on reversal on wastage - HELD THAT:- This Court in the case of M/S. SHRI RANGANATHAR VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) [2016 (12) TMI 510 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] it is open to the Assessing Officer to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his objections with regard to “Input Tax Credit on reversal on wastage” and “Ineligible claim of ITC on goods” are concerned.
The impugned orders are set aside and the issue with regard to restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit for prior sufferance of taxes is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration - Assessing Officer shall, before taking a final decision, extend due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and endeavour to complete the proceedings, atleast within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (9) TMI 639
Recovery of tax dues (arrears) - Validity of Sale of property in public auction - Improper bidding of the 1/5th share of the petitioner over his ancestral property - Section 50(2)(i) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - HELD THAT:- The attachment of the property and the sale thereof held on 03.10.2008 were in respect of undivided share of the petitioner in the property. The petitioner was not in actual and exclusive possession of the property when the sale was effected and the Government purchased the land. The pleadings would show that the petitioner has been trying to raise funds sufficient for the payment of sales tax arrears. Ext.P2 letter dated 25.03.2017 would show that the petitioner has been making representation to the respondents for reconveyance of the property - At any rate, the petitioner has approached the respondents submitting himself to the Amnesty Scheme. The respondents by themselves permitted the petitioner to participate in the Amnesty Scheme and intimated to the petitioner the amounts to be paid to the Government to settle the issue of sales tax arrears. Such intimation was not pursuant to any orders of this Court. This Court passed an interim order only 18.07.2017 making it clear that payment made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P4 intimation of the State Tax Officer will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court.
In this case, though the State bought the land for a consideration of Re.1, what was bought by the State is only the undivided share of the property belonging to the petitioner. The State was not at any point of time had the actual the possession of the land. In the meanwhile, the respondents permitted the petitioner to participate in the Amnesty Scheme and offered to settle the sales tax disputes by the petitioner paying an amount of ₹ 9,58,610/-, as per Ext.P4. In the circumstances, equity demands that the undivided share purchased by the respondents is restituted to the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to issue orders immediately and take action to return the property covered by Ext.P1 order, after cancelling the sale and orders of confirmation, if any.
-
2020 (9) TMI 501
Validity of proceedings - petitioner raised a ground 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 reports and proposals of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities, who are their higher authorities - HELD THAT:- Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 has empowered the Assessing Officers to henceforth independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials.
Pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officers, the petitioner company was assessed to the Best of Judgment for the Assessment Year 1994-95, as against which the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and by an order dated 25.07.2011, the Tribunal had remitted back the entire assessment to the Assessing Officer for pre-determination. While doing so, one of the direction to the Assessing Officer was to examine each and every transactions of the Form-F Declaration filed by the Assessee as provided under Section 6 A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. However, in disregard of the Tribunal's order, the Assessing Officer had not gone into each and every transactions of the Form-F Declaration and on this ground also the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the first respondent herein for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (9) TMI 480
Validity of assessment Order - time limitation - main contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the impugned assessment order passed by the Superintendent of Taxes(Assessing Officer) Agartala for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15 was ultra vires the provisions of Section 33 of the TVAT Act, 2004 because such assessment was absolutely time barred - Imposition of penalty on the ground of evasion of tax by way of concealment of taxable turnover was made without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - imposition of penalty in terms of Section 53(3) of the TVAT Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee - non submission of the audited accounts of his company in absence of prescribed form in terms of Section 53(1) of TVAT Act.
Whether the impugned assessment order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes(Assessing Officer) Agartala for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15 is ultra vires the provisions of Section 33 of the TVAT Act, 2004 being hit by limitation? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the impugned order of assessment dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer covers the period of the assessment from 2011-12 to 2014-15 meaning thereby the tax period in question ended on 31st March, 2015 - As provided under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the TVAT Act, 2004, no assessment under Section 31 and 32 shall be made after expiry of five years from the end of the tax period to which the assessment relates.
Section 33 of the TVAT Act, 2004 lays down the prescription of limitation of 5 years from the end of the tax period to which the assessment relates. The revision petitioner contends that the order of assessment for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15 being ultra vires of Section 33 need to be quashed and set aside and in consequence the order dated 28.02.2017 of the Revisional Authority upholding the assessment order should also be quashed.
Apparently the assessment order dated 29.09.2016 for the tax period from 2011-12 to 2014-15 was made after issuing notice dated 31.08.2016 to the assessee. The tax period of 2011-12 ended on 31st March, 2012 for which the assessment order was made on 29.09.2016 within the period of limitation provided under Section 33 of the TVAT Act and obviously, therefore, the assessment order for the years 2013-14 & 2014-15 also made on 29.09.2016 was well within the period of limitation of five years. As such the contention of the petitioner that the assessment order is hit by limitation is devoid of merit.
Whether the imposition of penalty@15% on the petitioner on the ground of evasion of tax by way of concealment of taxable turnover was made without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, admittedly no separate show cause notice in terms of Section 75A was issued to the dealer before imposition of 15% penalty on him - from a plain reading of Section 75A and having regard to the strict letter of the law, it becomes abundantly clear that penalty cannot be imposed for mere failure to pay tax unless there are materials to show that such failure was deliberate with a view to evade payment of tax liability. Evidently there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade or avoid taxes and therefore, levy of 15% penalty being totally illegal is quashed by us for the entire period of assessment.
Whether the penalty equal to 0.1% of the turnover was imposed on the assessee in terms of Section 53(3) of the TVAT Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee? - HELD THAT:- Imposition of penalty equal to 0.1% of the turnover for non submission of the audit report in terms of Section 53 of the TVAT Act is mandatory. The assessment order dated 29.09.2016 as well as the order dated 28.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Taxes in Revision Case No 18 to 21 of 2016 go to show that the dealer failed to submit the audit report within time in terms of Section 53 of the TVAT Act. Neither before the assessing officer nor before the Revisional Authority (Commissioner of Taxes) the assessee ever pleaded that he submitted the audit report in terms of Section 53(1) and (2) of the TVAT Act within the time specified in sub-section (2) of Section 53. Rather he pleaded before the Assessing Authority as well as the Revisional Authority (Commissioner of Taxes) that he could not submit the audit report within time.
There is, therefore, no doubt that the assessee did not submit the audit report in terms of Section 53(1) and (2) of the TVAT Act within the time prescribed under the said Section. The findings of the assessing officer as well as the Revisional Authority, as quoted above, are not disputed by the petitioner. Evidently, the assessment order dated 29.09.2016 imposing mandatory penalty equal to 0.1% of the turnover of the company of the assessee was imposed on the assessee in terms of Section 53(3) after hearing the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order with regard to imposition of penalty equal to 0.1% of the turnover of the company of the assessee suffers from no illegality.
Whether the assessee can be saddled with the liability of non submission of the audited accounts of his company in absence of prescribed form in terms of Section 53(1) of TVAT Act? - HELD THAT:- It is no case of the petitioner that he could not submit the audit report within time in terms of Section 53(2) of the TVAT Act due to non availability of such Form.
Assessment Order upheld except the penalty equal to 15% imposed by the assessing officer - petition allowed in part.
-
2020 (9) TMI 420
Constitutional Validity of Section Section 2(15)(ix) and 2 (33(vi), explanation I of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - Club and association service - principles of mutuality - incorporation of clubs after 46th amendment to the Constitution - HELD THAT:- The theory of mutuality will apply to both incorporated and unincorporated clubs. - Following the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED / M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT], the petition is disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 393
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining C-Form - HELD THAT:- The issue squarely covered 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 he Petitioner in these Writ Petitions has stated on affidavit that it is unable to download the ‘C’ forms from the websites as the same stand blocked from use. Upon enquiry with the Assessing Authorities, they have been informed that the benefit of the decision in M/s Ramco Cements Ltd can be extended only to those dealers 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 order in Writ Appeal is final, and following the rationale thereof, these Writ Petitions are allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 391
Violation of the principles of natural justice - Request for personal hearing rejected - Validity of assessment order - periods 2010-11 to 2015-16 - HELD THAT:- A pre-assessment proposal dated 24.04.2019 was issued by the Officer, wherein no reference was made to communication dated 13.08.2018, though the petitioner has placed on record at page 14 of the document compilation an acknowledgement for filing of the letter requesting personal hearing - In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner appears to have filed a letter dated 15.06.2019, for which there is no acknowledgement on record, seeking some more time to submit the required documents. The assessments have however been finalized vide impugned orders of assessment dated 31.07.2019 without reference to either of the requests of the petitioner.
Thus, no effective opportunity has been extended to the petitioner in this matter and in the interests of substantial justice, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to be heard in person in the light of this Courts’ specific direction to that effect vide order dated 11.04.2018 and the petitioners’ request for personal hearing in letter dated 13.08.2018 - impugned orders are set aside - Matter restored before the AO.
-
2020 (9) TMI 347
Maintainability of petition - Validity of assessment order - writ petition after 3 years - Condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- As on date, there is no justification whatsoever to interfere with the order of R1 confirming the assessment and levy of tax. In fact there is no acceptable explanation for the delay of three years in filing this writ petition - The only trigger for filing of this Writ Petition was that the cancellation of penalty had been challenged by the revenue and this can hardly be a ground for interference with the impugned order.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 346
Penalty Order - Stay, on condition that the petitioner furnished a simple bond to cover the disputed amount - limited prayer of the petitioner at this stage is for a direction to the respondents to accept the bond offered by him and to direct the Tribunal to dispose the appeal expeditiously - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner was granted a stay against recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. The only lapse on the part of the petitioner appears to have been the non-furnishing of the bond within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute however that Ext.P7 bond was subsequently offered before the respondent authority, but the said authority refused to accept the bond since it was preferred beyond the time stipulated by the Tribunal.
Inasmuch as there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by accepting the bond at this distance of time, the Writ Petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to accept Ext.P7 bond offered by the petitioner and to treat the same as in compliance with Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal - on furnishing the bond, the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal.
-
2020 (9) TMI 299
Input Tax Credit - restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit claimed in Form W for the months of December 2013 to May 2014 - Prior sufferance of Taxes - ITC on reversal on wastage - Ineligible claim of ITC on goods.
Restriction of the amount for prior sufferance of taxes - HELD THAT:- This issue has been dealt with in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), presently ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , PRESENTLY THIRUVERKADU ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI VERSUS INFINITI WHOLESALE LTD. [2016 (9) TMI 1431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein it has held that Input Tax Credit cannot be disallowed on the ground that the seller has not paid tax to the Government, when the purchaser is able to prove that the seller has collected tax and issued invoices to the purchaser. As such, restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit on this ground, cannot be sustained and requires re-consideration.
Restriction of Input Tax Credit claim wastages - HELD THAT:- This Court in the case of M/S. SHRI RANGANATHAR VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) [2016 (12) TMI 510 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that To ascertain as to whether there are quantum of loss of goods, which were purchased, on which, tax was paid, the Assessing Officer has to conduct an exercise, by which, he has to ascertain as to what would be the loss and uniform or ad hoc percentage cannot be adopted. To do so, it would be necessary for the Assessing Officer to conduct an inspection of the place of business of the petitioner to acquaint himself with the manufacturing process. However, since the respondent has adopted a uniform percentage, the same calls for interference - Thus, it is open to the Assessing Officer to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his objections with regard to “Input Tax Credit on reversal on wastage” and “Ineligible claim of ITC on goods” are concerned.
The issue with regard to restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit for prior sufferance of taxes is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 298
Recovery of tax alongwith Interest - allegation that the defendant has failed in paying the tax collected from the plaintiff and so also, the defendant has not filed VAT- 100 Returns - cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit, present or not.
Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit in coming to the conclusion that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to sue the defendant? - HELD THAT:- The Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that mere demand made by the Department against the plaintiff cannot raise any cause of action to institute the suit against the defendant. It is also pertinent to note that in Exs.P1 and P3, the Department while passing the order made an observation that the purchase made by the assessee- Company paid the tax, but such of those purchase transactions are bogus and not genuine business transactions. The same goes against the assessee- Company and further observed that the details of input tax availed by the assessee-Company is incorrect and when such an observation has been made and when the assessee-Company has not placed any semblance of material before this Court for having again paid the tax which has not been paid by the defendant, no cause of action arises for the plaintiff to recover the same from the defendant.
This Court has already observed that in terms of Exs.P2 and P4, there was a demand and having paid the tax again in terms of Exs.P2 and P4 insofar as non-payment of the tax by the defendant, if any payment is made, then automatically, the plaintiff would get the cause of action to institute the suit against the defendant and no such material is placed for having paid the amount in terms of demand made as per Exs.P2 and P4. When such being the case, there are no error committed by the Trial Judge in appreciating the material available on record.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 221
Validity of assessment order - proceedings on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC - defects with regard to mismatch in their returns vis-a-vis the other dealers - independent application of mind on the part of Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- 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 had considered the claim of the dealers in connection with Input Tax Credit reversal on an alleged mismatch between their returns and the returns filed by the sellers - impugned order on this issue set aside.
Independent application of mind on the part of Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- This Court, in a batch of Writ Petitions in the case of TVL. TARUN CREATION VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TIRUPUR. [2020 (8) TMI 689 - MADRAS HGIH COURT] had held that the Assessing Officer cannot be solely guided by the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing Officers and that the Assessing Officer has to independently consider the same, without being influenced by such proposals of the higher officials - Some of the decisions in which similar views have been taken are in the cases of MADRAS GRANITES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ARISIPALAYAM CIRCLE, SALAM AND ANOTHER [2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and NARASUS ROLLER FLOUR MILLS VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2015 (4) TMI 361 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Also, Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 has empowered the Assessing Officers to henceforth independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials - In view of Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai, the impugned proceedings in all these Writ Petitions, which proceeds on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC, are liable to be set aside.
The impugned assessment proceedings, which culminated on the basis of the inspection conducted by the Enforcement Officers, as well as the VAT Audit and the alleged mismatch between the returns of the petitioner with the corresponding dealers, cannot be sustained - the matters are remanded back to the respondent herein for reconsideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (9) TMI 220
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - income from undisclosed sale transactions - HELD THAT:- The respondent after finding the petitioner's explanation to be unsatisfactory had straight away assumed that the said sum represents income from undisclosed sale transactions. I am afraid that this approach is clearly not sustainable in law - In fact when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner's counsel produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Indian Bank as well as the City Union Bank to show that the transactions in question are between the Directors of the Company and the assessee themselves.
The second aspect of the matter pertains to reliance on the stock details report dated 13.02.2020. In this case, personal hearing was held on 31.01.2020. It is quite possible that the petitioner themselves requested the Assessing Authority to conduct an inspection. In fact, on the last occasion when the Assessing Officer was also heard through the Video Conference, she strongly submitted that the report dated 13.02.2020 was obtained based on the inspection that was undertaken at the instance of the petitioner themselves. It may be so -
It is obvious that the Assessing Officer had relied on a report dated 13.02.2020 before passing the impugned order. But the said report was not made available to the petitioner herein.
The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent and after the petitioner remits the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- as undertaken before this Court, the second respondent will issue a hearing notice to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (9) TMI 219
Maintainability of petition - petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative appellate remedy - requirement of pre-deposit being the pre-condition to entertain the appeal - HELD THAT:- During the hearing, it was pointed out that, before the Division Bench, where the writ appeals were originally heard, at the time of admission on 28.11.2019, the learned counsel for the assessee had offered to deposit 10% of the demand made in the impugned assessment for invocation of the statutory remedy before the appellate authority - The said offer was made voluntarily on the side of the assessee, of course, in the context of conditions imposed under the relevant provisions of the TNVAT Act to deposit 25% of the demand/tax due, as pre-deposit being the pre-condition to entertain the appeal. Only in order to get instructions to that offer made by the assessee side, the counsel appeared on behalf of the revenue seems to have taken time and only at that stage those writ appeals came to be disposed by our Division Bench in the common order dated 05.12.2019.
The impugned assessment order and the impugned demand dated 12.07.2019 made by the assessing authority for the assessment years 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, which are impugned in the respective writ petitions, which are the subject matter in the appeal are hereby set aside - Consequently, the matters are remitted back to the assessing authority for reassessment.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (9) TMI 218
Validity of Bihar Value Added Tax Ordinance, 2005 - vested rights accrued to the Petitioners with retrospective effect [before expiry of the period] for exemption from payment of Sales-tax on sale of Finished Products under the Notification- S 0 No.:96 dt. 04.04.1994 and Notification-S 0 No.: 479 dt.22.12.1995 issued under the Industrial Policy, 1993 & 1995.
HELD THAT:- This issue can be agitated by the petitioner first with the appropriate authority and thereafter before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 217
Levy of penalty u/s 47(b) of the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - registration of Charitable Hospitals - Deferment of assessment proceedings under Section 25 of the 2003 Act, before finalisation of the proceedings under Section 47(b) of the Act - HELD THAT:- It is a fit case where the penalty order Ext.P6 to P16 are not sustainable.
In M/s Fortis Healthcare Limited [2015 (2) TMI 1014 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of Punjab and Hariyana High Courts after noticing the provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax Act and as well as Power to Impose Sales Tax and VAT clause flowing from entry 54 of list to schedule 7 and Article 366 (29-A) of the Constitution of India did not accept the contention of the state for the applicability of doctrine of severance with regard to the services provided to the indoor patients involving medicines supply of surgical items, stents, implants valves with or without medical procedure or medical treatment. During all the aforementioned procedure supply of oxygen is also a sine qua non. All these services are in a packaged form and have to be consumed and cannot be segregated during the course of the treatment - Thus for all intends and purpose is rightly so held to be not exegible to tax.
The cumulative reading of the reasoning assigned herein above would leave a irresistible conclusion that the penalty orders do not stand touchstone of reasonability or any deviation from the provisions of Section 18C of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003, particularly when as per the proviso the petitioner-the charitable hospital is not required to obtain registration.
Penalty Order quashed - petition allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 170
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Grant and continuation with the exemption from payment of Sales-tax - purchase of Raw Materials & on sale of Finished Products to the extent in respect of quantum/amount made in the Industrial Policy - withdrawal of exemption before completion of the period for availing the amount of exemption - petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition as the same has become infructuous.
HELD THAT:- Petition disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2020 (9) TMI 169
Best Judgement Assessment - Reassessment of turnover - denial of input credit already allowed for the VAT collected by Southern Railway for the sale effected by the petitioner - Section 25(1) read with Section 25AA of the KVAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Ext.P2 is only a show cause notice and it is not necessary for this Court to interfere in the assessment proceedings at this stage. However taking into consideration the difficulties faced by the petitioner, it is necessary that the petitioner should be given time to get necessary documents to produce before the first respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a reply to show cause with supporting documents within a period of three months from today. If the petitioner submits reply to Ext.P2 within the said period of three months, the first respondent shall consider the contentions of the petitioner and decide the matter after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
-
2020 (9) TMI 119
Seizure order - penalty order - Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act - HELD THAT:- The goods which are eatable items i.e. 'Supari' and the vehicle are seized since 14th December, 2018 and to protect the interest of revenue, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit the entire assessed tax i.e. sum of ₹ 1,84,000/- plus penalty to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the seizing authority/ assessing authority and will furnish the security for the remaining penalty amount other than cash bank guarantee or bank draft to the satisfaction of seizing authority.
List this petition before appropriate Court on 20.10.2020.
............
|
9911796707
