|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 629 Records
-
2020 (8) TMI 779
Inter-state sale or not - fulfilment of conditions of Section 3 and 6(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or not - HELD THAT:- These writ petitions are disposed with the direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders considering the above clarification dated 28.10.2016 of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2020 (8) TMI 778
Levy of penalty under Section 10-A read with Section 10(b) of CST Act - purchase of diesel and fuel for generator set against the "C" forms at concessional rates - misuse of such Declaration in “C” forms - honest/bonafide belief or not - HELD THAT:- Section 10(b) of the Act provides for an offence if any person being registered dealer falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration. The expression falsely represents clearly shows that the element of mens rea is the necessary component of the offence. In the absence of mens rea, resort to penal provision would not be proper unless it is established that the conduct of the dealer was contumacious or that there was deliberate violation of the statutory provision or willful disregard thereof - If the registered dealer honestly believes that any particular goods are embraced by the certificate of registration and on that belief makes a representation, he cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 10(b) of the Act and no penalty can be imposed under Section 10A of the Act. The question whether the assessee acted under the honest belief is a question of fact.
The learned Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee was entitled to purchase the said fuel viz., diesel, for its generator set and even though the same was not separately included in the Registration Certificate of the Assessee, no mens rea can be attributed to the Assessee for purchase of the same at concessional rate against “C” Form and therefore, the question of imposition of penalty under Section 10(b) of the Act read with Section 10-A of the Act does not arise.
Petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (8) TMI 777
Levy of penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - it was viewed by the respondent that procurement of Low sulphur Heavy Stock Furnace Oil from oil companies against C-Form was improper for the period in dispute namely the assessment years 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the petitioner is engaged in generation of electricity. For generation of electricity the petitioner is required to use Low Sulphur Heavy Stock Furnace Oil. Earlier when the petitioner had obtained certificate of registration on 06.06.2000, there was a specific reference to Furnace Oil - Later, the registration was altered as Power Generating and Distributions and Transmission and Oil. This amendment was made to the registration certificate with effect from 06.06.2000 vide amendment to the registration certificate issued on 24.07.2001.
Thus, it is evident that petitioner was entitled to procure oil of every description as long as it was intended for generation of electricity and power along with, the other goods specified in the Certificate of Registration, oil would include Low Sulphur Heavy Stock Furnace Oil. It is also not the case of the respondent that Low Sulphur Heavy Stock Furnace Oil was not used for generating electricity and power - the conclusion arrived in the impugned orders that the petitioner had wrongly procured Low Sulphur Heavy Stock Furnace Oil against C-Form cannot be countenanced.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 736
Rectification of mistake - section 84 of CST Act - petitioner has claimed that even though they had entered into certain sale transactions, some of them were reversed and they had erroneously shown the same in their sales return - variation in value as set out in the export documents and what was found in their books of account.
HELD THAT:- When the assessing authorities could accept the explanation of the assessee for the subsequent years, there is no reason for them to take a different stand in the instant year. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition warrant interference.
As regards the aspect, namely, sales return, it is seen that the petitioner has enclosed the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountants along with their explanation. The Chartered Accountants have certified that the transactions in question were executed by the assessee and that they had been reversed in their books of account. In other words, the transactions became unfructified sales. It appears that for proving bona fides, the documents regarding reversal of export sales were produced before the assessing authority. The assessing authority has rejected this stand of the petitioner by stating that the relevant documents have not been submitted.
The reason given by assessing authority cannot be upheld - If the assessing authority is of the view that this is a false statement, the onus is on the authority. The petitioner cannot be expected to prove the negative.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2020 (8) TMI 691
Validity of assessment order - Levy of VAT - input tax credit - It was mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner did not file information such as books of accounts and tax invoices relating to input tax credit claimed by it and the input tax credit was proposed to be disallowed - assessment had to be completed under Section 29(3) of the Act within 4 years from the last date of filing the return for a particular month - HELD THAT:- Naturally during the period between the date of issuance of show cause notice dt.09-04-2020 and June, 2020 and 30-06-2020, it would have been difficult for the petitioner to obtain the services of Sales Tax Consultant, have access to material documents such as invoices etc., to properly defend itself against the proposal made by 1st respondent in the show cause notice dt.09-04-2020.
There has been a violation of principles of natural justice because petitioner could not file objections to the show cause notice on account of non-availability of its Sales Tax Consultant, and even a personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner though such personal hearing was sought by the petitioner.
The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (8) TMI 690
Determination of mandatory pre-deposit for admission of an appeal - adjustment of deposit with input tax credit (ITC) / Net credit - HELD THAT:- The Act requires a pre-deposit as per the language in the proviso(2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the Act and does not permit any adjustments - No authority is cited by the petitioner in support of petitioner’s contention that adjustment of any net credit of tax is required to be made by the appellate authority while considering any appeal filed under Section 35 of the Act - Petition dismissed.
Time Limitation - It is contended that by the time petitioner realized that an appeal needs to be filed, the limitation period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal under sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the Act had expired - HELD THAT:- Much case law has been referred to, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions taking the plea relating to the validity of omission of the proviso(1) to Section 31(1) of the Act and it is contended that pending adjudication of the said issue, the garnishee order issued by the 1st respondent on 16.03.2020 should be suspended, and the penalty order passed by the 1st respondent on 25.09.2019 in AO.No.43687 should also should be set aside.
Maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had a remedy of appeal under sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the Act against the penalty order dt.25.09.2019 passed by the 1st respondent; and the petitioner did not avail of the remedy at all; and the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule permitting entertainment of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in spite of existence of an alternative remedy, and therefore we are not inclined to entertained the Writ Petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 689
Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of proceedings/notices - non-application of independent mind - issue is that the impugned proceedings/notices are made on the basis of the Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals proceeded from the Enforement Wing or from ISIC Authorities - Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 - HELD THAT:- The Circular 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 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 Assessees/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 (8) TMI 688
Maintainability of Revision Petition - revision petitions dismissed only on the ground that already charges were framed and trial has been commenced in all the cases - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue prosecution sanction against the defaulting dealer - sanction to prosecute the petitioner.
The only point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the competent authority did not accord any sanction to prosecute the petitioner herein - HELD THAT:- The competent officer accorded sanction for prosecution to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b) and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of Pondicherry General Sales Tax 1967 r/w Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and under Section 409 and r/w 34 of IPC - Further this Court also finds that there are prima facie materials to attract the offences under Sections 49(2)(a), 49(2)(b) and 27(2)(b) r/w 27(3) of Pondicherry General Sales Tax 1967 r/w Section 81 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and under Section 409 and r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court dismissed the discharge petition not only on the ground that already the charges were framed and trial commenced but also on merits, as stated above. This quash petition is nothing but to clear abuse of process of Court, since the petitioner already filed discharge petition and the same was dismissed on merits.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 687
Taxability - Exemption on the sale of REP licence - Goods or not - HELD THAT:- The Honourable Supreme Court in its detailed judgment, in the case of Yasha Overseas vs Commissioner of Sales Tax and others [2008 (5) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT], while discussing various precedents on the issue, held that both REP license and DEPB license amounted to 'goods' and therefore sales thereon, was taxable under the Sales Tax Law of the State.
There are no merits in the present petition - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 686
Penultimate sale - leather garments - Exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - purchase of raw hides and skins - exemption denied on the ground that the goods in question exported viz., leather garments were not the “same goods” as the goods purchased, viz., Raw Hides and Skins and therefore, the Assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act - HELD THAT:- There are no details of entire chain of transactions established by the Assessee at all. Neither the details of export orders are available, nor the purchases of Raw Hides made by the Assessee directly linked to such export orders after being converted into Leather Garments is established - there are no discussion in any of the orders of authorities below passed by them and placed. The mere claim of the Assessee that the Assessing Authority had initially allowed such exemption under Section 5 (3) of the Act upon due scrutiny of the transactions is not acceptable, because the finding of facts with regard to inextricable link between the sale or purchase claimed to be exempted under Section 5(3) of the Act and the export has to be established by the Assessee by leading evidence.
Since such findings are not available, it cannot be held that the Assessee is entitled to such exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act, nor the order of the learned Tribunal or the Assessing Authority, allowing such exemption without the facts being fully and properly examined with due scrutiny by the Assessing Authority, can be sustained.
The matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Assessing Officer for passing fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee and allowing him to lead requisite evidence to establish such inextricable link between the sale or purchase of the raw hides and skins in question and the export of leather garments or Dressed Hides and Skins by the Assessee - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (8) TMI 607
Levy of entertainment Tax - petitioner got itself registered under the said Act on the rolls of the 1st respondent w.e.f. 01.08.2008 - demand of tax for the tax period 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 on three entities - HELD THAT:- The impugned Stay rejection order dt.30.05.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent deserves to be set aside on the ground of nonconsideration of contentions of petitioner by the 3rd respondent, and that the matter ought to be remitted to 3rd respondent for fresh consideration.
The impugned passed by the 3rd respondent for the Assessment period 2010-11 to 2013-14 is set aside - the Stay application filed by the petitioner in the Appeal filed by it before the 3rd respondent is restored to the file of the 3rd respondent - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 606
Grant of reimbursement equal to the amount of taxes deposited by the petitioner by way of subsidy - Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 - transfer the funds on the head of subsidy towards admitted tax paid on account of Bihar VAT Act, Bihar Entry Tax Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act to the Sales Tax Department - It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the clarification to clause 2 (vi) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 read with Annexure-III of the said Incentive Policy makes it amply clear that the subsidy/ incentive is to be granted both on VAT as also on Bihar Entry Tax.
HELD THAT:- It is found from a bare perusal of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 and the Annexures thereto that the said Policy, as notified in the gazette on 25.07.2006, under clause-2(vi) provides for availing 80% reimbursement by the new units, against the admitted VAT amount deposited in the account of the Government, for a period of ten years and the clarification thereof admittedly postulates that incentive would not be payable on the amount imposed as penalty and the difference of amount between tax assessed and accepted under the Central Sales Tax/Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and Bihar Entry Tax Act, meaning thereby that the incentive would be payable on the rest of the amount under the aforesaid three types of taxes i.e. Central Sales Tax, Bihar Value Added Tax and the Bihar Entry Tax. Moreover, Annexure-III to the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 contains the format of pass-book to be maintained for the purposes of claiming the incentive under clause-2(vi) and the same takes into consideration the amount of tax admitted under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act as also the amount paid against the amount of tax admitted under the Bihar Entry Tax Act, hence, there is nothing left for either speculation or determination or adjudication and the plain meaning thereof would definitely have only one connotation i.e. subsidy/ incentive would not only be available on VAT but also on Entry Tax.
It is amply demonstrable that the State Government has envisaged to give subsidy/incentive, under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006, qua the amount of admitted VAT, which apparently also includes Bihar Entry Tax. This Court is of the view that merely the heading of a provision/clause cannot be relied upon since the same is not always determinative in the matter of interpretation of the policy and the language of the provision coupled with the policy as a whole must be looked into and if the language employed is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, it must be given effect to, notwithstanding the fact that certain portion of the heading may be inconsistent with the substantive provision.
Thus, upon a wholesome reading of the entire Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 along with its Annexures, this court finds that the provisions contained in the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 regarding grant of subsidy/incentive on VAT/Entry Tax is clear, unambiguous as also unequivocal and the only meaning and effect thereof is that subsidy/incentive is to be granted on payment made towards admitted Tax on account of Bihar VAT Act, Bihar Entry Tax Act as well as the Central Sales tax Act - It is a well settled law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the government in exercise of its governmental, public or executive functions and the doctrine of executive necessity on the freedom of future executive action cannot be invoked to defeat the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
The writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant subsidy / reimbursement to the petitioner under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006, qua the payments made by it towards admitted Tax under the Bihar VAT Act, Bihar Entry Tax Act and the Central Sales tax Act, for the relevant period for which the petitioner is entitled to, within a period of three months of receipt/production of a copy of this Order.
-
2020 (8) TMI 605
Mechanism for settlement of disputes - validity of Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area For consumption, Use and Sale Therein Act, 1993 - validity of notification enhancing rate of tax - N/N. SO 95 dated 31.07.2008 - enactment of yet another legislation, i.e., Bihar Settlement Taxation Disputes Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The Act does not postulate any settlement subject to the outcome of any order/judgment passed by any judicial or quasijudicial authority. It is complete and independent legislation with a specified object and purpose of settlement of disputes of different nature and categories - It is not in dispute that under such statutory right, Petitioner, within the prescribed time, applied for the settlement of a dispute in Form-I. It is also not in dispute that specific queries were raised by the Prescribed Authority, which also was answered by the Petitioner vide detailed response annexed to the Petition (s). However, the Petitioner application stands rejected vide impugned order dated 25.06.2020.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI & OTHERS [2015 (5) TMI 500 - SUPREME COURT] has elaborately discussed and laid down different facets of principles of natural justice, including the requirement of passing a reasoned order. Of course, such principles need to be applied to attending facts and circumstances, which in the instant cases, we find to apply with equal force.
The Prescribed Authority does not assign any decipherable reason in rejecting the application. Hence, in our considered view, there is non-application of mind, much less consideration of material placed by the party in support of its claim for settlement under the Act - We may observe that with intent to put an end to the entire litigation, spread over more one and a half decades, and Petitioner sought to exercise its right under Law, which, unfortunately, appears to have been scuttled by the Prescribed Authority without application of mind.
The Prescribed Authority are directed to decide the Petitioner's application afresh by assigning reasons - petition allowed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 572
Principles of Natural Justice - case of petitioner is that the assessing officer, without properly applying his mind on the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner, simply recorded the statement made by the enforcement wing officials and passed the impugned orders relating to the assessment years in question - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of AMUTHA METALS VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANNADY (EAST) ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI [2007 (3) TMI 677 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that Under the statutory provisions, it is expected from the assessing officer to consider the objections and either accept or reject the same by giving valid reasons by applying his mind.
The matters are remitted back to the first respondent for passing orders afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (8) TMI 532
Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of assessment order - Input Tax Credit - cancellation of registration certificate of the vendor - allegation that disallowance of Input Tax Credit without providing the copy of the order of cancellation of registration certificate of the vendor - HELD THAT:- The issue raised in the present writ application is identical to the issue which was raised before the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/S. B.K. TRADERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VIRALBHAI VINODBHAI KARIA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2020 (7) TMI 471 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that In the instant case, since there is violation of principles of natural justice, more particularly, when the petitioner chose to approach the respondent-authority on 13.03.2020 and requested for relevant and vital documents, in response to the notice issued by it, without supplying the same, respondent-authority has imposed the petitioner with not only the heavy penalty but also interest by the order dated 24.03.2020, which is impugned in this petition, we, therefore, deem it appropriate to entertain this petition and at the joint request made by both the sides, matter deserves to be remitted, quashing and setting aside the impugned order of assessment.
There are many procedural lapses on the part of the respondent No.2 going to the root of the matter. There is no escape from the fact that the hearing for the purpose of imposing penalty under the Act, 2003 pursuant to the notice issued in that regard in Form No.309 was fixed on 24th March 2020. The notice in Form No.309 is dated 17th March 2020. However, it appears that when the representative of the writ applicants appeared before the respondent No.2 on 17th March 2020, a copy of the Form No.309 was served upon him and on the very next date i.e. 18th March 2020, the hearing was undertaken and the order also came to be passed on the very same date including the order of penalty.
We are not convinced with the manner in which the proceedings have been dealt with by the respondent No.2. It would have been very easy for us to decline to entertain this writ application on the ground that the remedy of appeal is available to the writ applicants, but we believe that justice should not only be done, it should manifestly appear to have been done - There is one another aspect of the matter. It is not even the case of the respondent No.2 that the vendors from whom the goods were purchased by the respondent No.2 had not paid tax on the transaction on which the writ applicants claimed the Input Tax Credit. It is also not the case of the respondent No.2 that the writ applicants purchased the goods from such vendors after their registrations were cancelled.
The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2 for its consideration a fresh, on merits. The claim of Input Tax Credit shall be considered a fresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants - Application allowed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 530
Maintainability of application - alternative statutory remedy of appeal - Gujarat VAT Act - whether we should entertain this writ application in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or relegate the writ applicant to avail the statutory remedy of preferring an appeal as provided under the provisions of the GVAT Act?
HELD THAT:- If the order is made by a Deputy Commissioner as in the case on hand, the appeal shall lie to the Joint Commissioner. In the case of an order passed in appeal by a Joint Commissioner, a second appeal would lie to the Tribunal. Ultimately, an appeal lies to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Thus, the GVAT Act, 2003 provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment and the impugned order of assessment can only be challenged as prescribed by the Act and not by a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled position of law that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of.
Reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS CO. LIMITED. AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER [1983 (4) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it is observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it,, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of.
As in the instance case, the GVAT Act, 2003 provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the authorities, in our opinion, the writ applicant should not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly, when the writ applicant has the adequate remedy open him by an appeal to the Joint Commissioner - it is not convincing that it is not a case wherein we should entertain this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite there being an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal.
This writ application cannot be admitted and the writ applicant is relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 73 of the GVAT Act, 2003 - application dismissed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 450
Levy of penalty u/s 31(8) of Haryana VAT Act - allegation that the driver was not carrying statutory documents though the goods in the present case have been imported from out of country and the Custom Duty has been paid on the same - appellant argued that the penalty imposed was illegal, there could have been no evasion of tax as the goods were imported from Germany and it was accompanied by challan VAT D-3 and bill of entry.
HELD THAT:- The contentions raised lack merit. The documents produced showed import by NAW, the goods were moving from Tuglabad to Faridabad, as per the handwritten slip and the statements recorded, the goods were to be delivered to the appellant directly. There was no document accompanying the goods for the said transaction i.e. transfer to the appellant. It would be worth mentioning here that the employee of the appellant was accompanying the goods, yet he was not carrying any document for the transaction between NAW and the appellant - The fact that the goods originated from Germany will not be of any help in the present case as there would be no tax involved in the hands of the importer so far as import transaction is concerned but the subsequent transaction would be governed by the provisions of the Act.
The stand taken by the appellant that the goods were being sent for job work was not substantiated, as no agreement to the said effect was produced. The challan for transfer of goods was produced after a delay of 14 days, there is no mention of time of removal of goods in the challan and the same has rightly been not found worth reliance.
There is another aspect of the matter, inspite of the fact that the goods worth ₹ 30 lacs odd were detained by the authorities, yet the principal/real owner (as per the case of the appellant) neither came forward in the penalty proceedings nor produced evidence which was solely in its possession, to substantiate the stand taken and the averments made.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (8) TMI 378
Issuance of Form-9 - exemption from sales tax - HELD THAT:- The respondents, if so advised, may make such claim, as they are entitled to under law, for the purpose of claiming exemption in respect of sales tax for the assessment years in question. This would not affect any claim for exemption made earlier nor result in re-opening of any assessment already made. Obviously, assessments, if any, will be made according to law.
The application for issuance of form 9 or any other appropriate form for the purpose of claiming exemption in respect of assessment years in question shall be made by the respondent within a period of three months from today.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (8) TMI 377
Recall of order - ex-parte order - section 32 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - contention of applicant is that as per section 29(6) of the Act, no proceedings could have continued after the end of the assessment year - HELD THAT:- When the First Appeal was being heard and the applicant's case was that no proceeding against him could be continued as per section 29(6) of the Act, then a complete stay of the recovery ought to have been there.
Under such circumstances, it is being provided that while the First Appeal would be heard and decided within a period of four months from the date of presentation of this order, the disputed demand as was being made by the Department shall remain stayed for a period of four months or till the disposal of the First Appeal, whichever is earlier.
Revision disposed off.
-
2020 (8) TMI 346
Valuation - inclusion of consultancy charges in the assessable value - assessee took the contention that the software was sold for a particular price and the consultancy services are with respect to the modifications made in the software to adapt it to the purchaser's requirements - imposition of penalty at double the tax amount - HELD THAT:- The learned Senior Government Pleader invited us to the records to point out that the invoices produced would clearly demonstrate the manner in which the transaction was carried out, making the entire turnover taxable under the KVAT Act. We are, however, not looking at the facts in the above revisions and have to confine ourselves to determination of questions of law. We have stated the law and the facts have to be examined by the statutory authorities. The statute provides for adjudication by the original authority and then two stages of appeals; the forums enjoined with the power to so adjudicate have been empowered to look into the facts.
The matter has to be remanded back to the fact finding authority - revision allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
