|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 629 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 552
Disbursement of Refund amount - assessment year 2008-2009 - HELD THAT:- In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the liability to make refund is admitted. Therefore, the reason now stated through the learned Special Government Pleader cannot be accepted. The respondents are directed to make the petition mentioned refund to the petitioner without any delay. Of course the respondents will also be liable to pay the said amount along with statutory interest. This amount shall be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petiton allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 551
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - periods 2011-12 and 2012-13 - allegation is that the impugned assessments are passed entirely upon the report of the officials of the Enforcement Wing and do not reflect any independent application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer - Circular No.3/2019 - HELD THAT:- Even in the case where there is an adverse report by the Enforcement Wing in regard to a particular issue, the Assessing Officer is at liberty and in fact ought to examine the issue independently. This has admittedly not been done in this case. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and the Writ Petitions allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 530
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining C-Form - HELD THAT:- Similar 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 of the concessional rate is available to dealers who purchase High Speed Diesel from neighbouring States by way of inter-state sales.
The matter is similar and thus the case is relied upon and similar order passed - petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 513
Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio - Availment of Capital Investment Subsidy - issuance of new Entitlement Certificate for subsidy - Capital Investment Subsidy to the Appellant to the extent of 75% of deposited VAT. - whether the company was entitled to the subsidy to the extent of 75% of tax payable and deposited or was entitled only to 50%?
Entitlement of the Appellant to Capital Investment Subsidy - HELD THAT:- It appears that though at one stage (i.e., on 02.12.2005), the State Government thought it proper to announce an entirely different treatment to cement units by extending 75% subsidy to them with a different methodology and hence, inserted Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) to Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 but, it did not continue with that policy and deleted the said sub-clauses on 28.04.2006. It remains trite that extending of any incentive in the form of exemption, rebate, concession or subsidy is a matter of the policy of the Government and for that matter, fiscal policy. Ordinarily, such framing of the policy remains within the domain of the Government; and the Government is entitled to frame a particular policy and to alter the same, as deemed fit and proper. As to whether the cement industry was to be granted 75% subsidy under RIPS-2003 or not was definitely a matter of the policy of the Government; and when such a policy was not in existence at the time of consideration of the application of the Appellant, no benefit could have been claimed under a non-existent policy.
The Additional Chief Secretary has rightly held that SLSC's decision dated 17.03.2011 and its repeat decision dated 24.11.2011 had been erroneous on the very fundamentals where it was assumed as if BIDI had already sanctioned 75% subsidy to the company. The High Court has also independently examined the entire matter in requisite details and we are unable to find any infirmity when the High Court has held that the Appellant company was only entitled to subsidy to the extent of 50% of the tax payable and deposited and not to the extent of 75%.
SLSC's decision of granting 75% subsidy to the Appellant - HELD THAT:- The possibility of so called other view (the wrong one) could arise only if SLSC is held entitled to simply turn itself away from the applicable provisions of the Scheme while ignoring the fact that Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 had already been deleted; and is simultaneously conferred with dubious discretion to interpret the decision of BIDI in whatever manner it would chose to. Obviously, such arbitrary authority or unfettered discretion is not available to any decision taking body; and could least be countenanced for a responsible body of the Government, like SLSC, who deals with public exchequer. Having examined the record in its totality, we have not an iota of doubt that the initial decision of SLSC had not only been erroneous but had been highly perverse, reaching the level of absurdity. The view of SLSC cannot be regarded as a possible view of the matter from any standpoint or any angle - the contention on the part of the Appellant about existence of any ambiguity in the matter and extending the benefit of ambiguity to itself could only be, and is, rejected.
Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio - HELD THAT:- The doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio cannot be invoked in the case of present nature would also be clear by visualising the result, if at all this doctrine is applied. It is not far to seek that if at all this doctrine is applied, the consequence would be that howsoever erroneous a decision by the executive or administrative authority may be, once it emanates from the understanding of some of the officers or authorities, the same would acquire immunity from scrutiny for all time to come. Such has never been the intent of the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio nor could such a result be countenanced.
Whether principles of Promissory Estoppel apply? - HELD THAT:- When the decisions of SLSC dated 17.03.2011 and 24.04.2011 turn out to be unauthorised and not in accord with the applicable provisions of the Scheme, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for their enforcement - Even otherwise, when the decision of SLSC, or any decision of any authority for that matter, was subject to revision by the Government in terms of Clause 13 of the Scheme, it cannot be suggested that the said power of revision cannot be invoked. In other words, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot operate against such revisional power of the Government. Hence, this part of the contentions also deserves to be, and is, rejected.
Exercise of powers of revision by the State Government under Clause 13 - HELD THAT:- The initial decision of SLSC was entirely erroneous and cannot be said to be a possible view of the matter. Coupled with that, the said decision was directly prejudicial to the interest of revenue where the State exchequer was to part with extra 25% of the tax amount received or receivable from the Appellant. As noticed, the learned ACS, while passing the order dated 12.03.2008 in exercise of such power of revision under Clause 13 of the Scheme, has meticulously examined the entire material and has recorded each and every finding with due regard to the dealings of the parties and the provisions of Scheme as applicable. The exercise of power of revision as per Clause 13 of the Scheme remains unexceptionable in the present case.
Effect of availing 75% subsidy for 7 years - HELD THAT:- The suggestion that already availed benefit cannot be withdrawn turn out to be hollow and baseless because whatever was obtained by the Appellant, beyond its entitlement, had only been based on an erroneous and unauthorised decision of SLSC. In any case, RIPS-2003 being a matter of concession in the form of subsidy, securing an advantage by the Appellant at the cost of public exchequer could not have been allowed and, for the Scheme itself having reserved the powers in the State Government to revise the erroneous and prejudicial order within a period of five years from the date of fully availing of the benefits, such powers have rightly been invoked and exercised by the State Government.
Thus, BIDI, in its decision dated 01.04.2006 never directed for grant of 75% subsidy to the Appellant company in terms of proviso to Clauses 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of RIPS-2003 nor allowed any customised package to the company. The position of record is crystal clear that BIDI's decision dated 01.04.2006 had only been for allowing 'recently announced cement package' to the company and that was also coupled with the requirement of applicability of RIPS-2003. The initial part of this decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006 and the company's prayer dated 26.04.2006 for registration in terms of Sub-clause (vii) of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 became redundant on 28.04.2006 with the amendment of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 and deletion of Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) thereof because no decision had been taken by SLSC to grant subsidy to the company in terms of the said Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 by that date i.e., 28.04.2006 - It is also clear that the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio neither applies to this case nor inures to the benefit of Appellant. The principles of promissory estoppel are equally inapplicable and the State Government has rightly exercised the powers of revision under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003 to interfere with the erroneous decisions of SLSC whereby the Appellant was allowed 25% extra subsidy and which was, obviously, prejudicial to the interest of revenue; and mere availing of the benefits by the Appellant under the erroneous decisions of SLSC is of no effect, particularly when the State Government has exercised the powers of revision within the time stipulated in Clause 13 of RIPS-2003.
Levy of Interest - HELD THAT:- When availing of subsidy to the tune of 75% (and thereby availing 25% in excess) is not referable to any misrepresentation by the Appellants and there is no allegation of breach of any of the conditions of RIPS-2003 by the Appellants while availing such benefit, the Respondent cannot be held entitled to demand interest at the rate stipulated in Clause 10 of RIPS-2003. However, and at the same time, when the Appellant company had obtained undue advantage in monetary terms by availing 25% extra subsidy; and had given undertaking to refund any excessive benefit with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in our view, the Appellant company remains liable to refund the excess amount together with interest at the rate agreed upon, i.e., 12% per annum.
The impugned order of the High Court dated 11.01.2019, upholding the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is affirmed but with the modification that the Respondents shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of availing of excessive subsidy (25%) by the Appellants until payment/recovery - appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (7) TMI 483
Validity of assessment order - principles of natural justice - Order has been passed disregarding various documents submitted by the petitioner on different dates - HELD THAT:- Issue notice returnable on 27.07.2020.
Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent-State.
-
2020 (7) TMI 471
Principles of Natural Justice - legality and the validity of the assessment order - challenge is made essentially and predominantly on the grounds that, without assigning any reason or availing any opportunity and in complete breach of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 - 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.
The period prescribed for reassessment of five years has already been concluded on 31.03.2020. However, since, the petitioner has moved this Court questioning the action of the respondent authority and as it has submitted through the learned Sr. Advocate representing its case that no contention, with regard to period of limitation shall be raised, the same shall not be treated as a ground to hamper the proceedings before the tax authority for its fresh consideration of the show-cause notice issued to the present petitioner. It would be of utmost necessary for the adjudicating authority to independently examine the material, which has been/ shall be placed on record before it by the petitioner and assess the same, on the strength of the substantiating documents, rather than basing its decision, solely on the cancellation of the registration of M/s. Maa Oil Mills, ab initio from the year 2007.
This petition succeeds and is PARTLY ALLOWED - The impugned order dated 24.03.2020 is QUASHED and set aside and the matter is REMANDED to the competent authority for its consideration afresh, on merits, the case of the petitioner of ITC, after availing due opportunity to the petitioner, herein.
-
2020 (7) TMI 470
Principles of Natural Justice - Jurisdiction - Power of Respondent of Re-opening of self assessment after expiry of statutory time limit - section 25A to KVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The matter in issue is covered in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 judgment in the case in Philips India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner & Others [2016 (10) TMI 814 - KERALA HIGH COURT] as well as by Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court on 02/02/2017 in WP(c) 35493/2016. Ext.P3 judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. Further petitioner has got a specific case that Ext.P2 order is an ex-parte order and the notice dated 26/09/2019 has not been served on the petitioner.
The impugned Ext. P2 ex-parte order will stand quashed - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 469
Re-opening of assessment - suo motu review proceedings - Levy of purchase tax - return of empty bottles from unregistered dealers - section 12(1) of the WB VAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- The assessment order has been passed after hearing the petitioner under section 46(1) of the VAT Act. The petitioner had produced the books of account and necessary records which were duly examined by the respondents. The petitioner was assessed for tax liability on the best judgment basis for various expenses as reflected in final accounts and also for tax on sale of plastic crates. Purchase tax under section 12 was also levied upon the petitioner and the petitioner was made liable to pay a sum of ₹ 59, after giving credit for tax paid/tax deducted at source during the concerned financial year. It also appears that the petitioner did not dispute the said liability and the assessment order had attained finality.
The orders passed in the suo motu revisional proceedings on December 21, 2018, cannot be set aside on the point of law that the petitioner is not liable to pay tax on return of bottles from the dealers. Since report of Bureau of Investigation has been independently considered by the respondent authorities while undertaking suo motu revision, we are of the considered view that the said report of bureau of investigation cannot also be set aside.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 417
Validity of assessment order - time limitation - case of the petitioners is that notices/assessment orders are beyond limitation as prescribed under section 29(4) of the Act - HELD THAT:- As per section 29(1), if any amount is found due on the basis of return filed, an intimation is to be sent to the person specifying the sum payable then the same shall be deemed as demand notice. The first proviso to sub- section (1) states that acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be intimation under the sub-section either that no sum is payable or no refund is due. Sub-section (2) provides for best judgment assessment in the circumstances prescribed in clauses (a) to (e). As per sub-section (3), the Commissioner on his own motion or on an information received can order framing of an assessment by designated officer by any person or any class of persons for the period prescribed. Sub-section (4) provides limitation for making assessment under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) - it is evident that during the relevant time the limitation prescribed for making the assessment was within three years from the date when the annual statement was filed or was due to be filed, whichever was later. The said provision was amended and the period was extended to six years. In the Explanation added, it was clarified that the period of six years would apply to those cases in which the period of six years had not yet expired.
Thus, we are not considering the issue as to whether the amended period of limitation of six years would apply to the present cases or not. We are proceeding by assuming that there was period of six years from the date of filing of the annual statement or when it was due.
The facts are not disputed, admittedly the notices are beyond limitation and it is in these circumstances that interference is made in the writ petitions. The impugned notices/assessment orders are set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 383
Reopening of assessment - rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - exemption from payment of sales tax - Government vide G.O.Ms.No.528 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 21.11.1997 - levy of penalty.
Whether the power under Section 55 of the Act could have been invoked and Section 55 of the Act gives power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record? - HELD THAT:- The intention of the Legislature was to grant power to the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal to rectify its orders when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the power under Section 55 of the Act cannot be used to review an order of assessment by reopening an assessment. Such power has not been conferred on the Authority under Section 55 of the Act - In the instant case, the Assessing Officer, while passing the revised assessment orders dated 28.7.2009, reviewed the earlier assessment orders, which is impermissible in law by invoking Section 55 of the Act.
The mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. Only if all these features are available, the assessment can be reopened by invoking the power under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the revision of assessment dated 28.7.2009 is wholly without jurisdiction - Hence, the issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the Revenue.
Whether the Tribunal was right in denying the benefit of exemption, largely, by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COASTAL CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AP AND OTHERS (AND OTHER APPEALS) [1999 (10) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of TEAKTEX PROCESSING COMPLEX LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF KERALA [2002 (10) TMI 761 - KERALA HIGH COURT]? - HELD THAT:- In view of the factual position in the decision in the case of Coastal Chemicals Limited wherein the question involved was as to whether the natural gas fell within the meaning of the word 'consumables' in Section 5B(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, based on which, the decision was rendered, we find, on facts, that the said decision cannot be of any assistance to the case of the Revenue.
The most important aspect, which is to be noted, is that the exemption has been granted by the State Government for sale of certain items of goods to 100% EOUs in the State and the units located in Chennai Export Processing Zone. Therefore, the object of exemption is to promote exports. The Tribunal proceeded largely by examining as to what would be the meaning of the term ‘consumable’ and referred to the two decisions and held that though the carbide tip inserts lose their utility, they do not lose identity. The Tribunal should have interpreted the expression 'consumable goods’ and if the same is done, the nature of the goods supplied and whether the same gets consumed would be required to be examined.
The exemption notification has to be interpreted in a strict manner without adding any words to it. As mentioned earlier, the object of the Legislature is to promote exports. Therefore, if viewed from the purchasers’ point of view, the carbide tool becomes useless after it loses its utility. So far as the sellers are concerned, on sale of the goods and use by the purchasers, if it loses its utility, it can no longer be termed as a tool or a cutting device. Hence, viewed from the angle of both the purchasers and the sellers, the carbide tip tools are to be treated as consumable goods and are entitled to the benefit of exemption - the issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.
Revision allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 314
Principles of Natural Justice - allegation is that no show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and even details of the show-cause notice like reference number or date of the show cause notice are not mentioned in the impugned order - petitioner claims to have closed down its business in June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes states, on instructions, that since the petitioner claims to have closed down its business in June, 2017, and since the impugned order does not make any reference to the date of service of the show-cause notice or intimation of personal hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted to the 1st respondent.
Thus, without serving a show-cause notice on the petitioner, it was not open to the 1st respondent to pass the impugned order and the 1st respondent also could not have denied a personal hearing to the petitioner since the assessment in question relates to April, 2015 to March, 2016 and the impugned order was passed almost four (4) years after the expiry of the said period - the 1st respondent is directed to serve a show-cause notice in person or by RPAD on the petitioner; the petitioner is granted four (4) weeks time from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice to file explanation thereto along with supporting material - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 313
Restoration of registration certificate of the petitioner - Reversal of Input Tax Credit - purchases made from registered dealers - assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- The respondent has erred in reversing the entire claim of Input Tax Credit for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 based on the notice dated 06.08.2014 relating to assessment year 2013-14 which was issued only in respect of reversal of one particular claim of Input Tax Credit and not for the entire claim during the said year. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing orders afresh.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 289
Levy of cost of ₹ 50,000 on the petitioner / Deputy Commissioner - Passing a whimsical order against the assessee - The Single Judge observed that the petitioner had passed an order which “is therefore nothing less than suffering from malice-in-facts as well as malice-in-law”. - Validity of reassessment order - HELD THAT:- The setting aside of the reassessment is not in question in the present proceedings nor is the direction imposing costs. The direction to recover costs from the petitioner and the observations against her are in question - there are no reasonable justification to hold that the petitioner had passed a whimsical order and that it suffered from malice in fact and in law. These observations were unnecessary for the adjudication of the merits of the dispute raised by the assessee. The conduct of the petitioner was not in question.
The order of the learned Single Judge quashing the reassessment is not the subject matter of the present proceedings and nothing contained in this order shall amount to an expression of opinion on the correctness of that direction - SLP disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 254
Validity of assessment order - Kerala VAT Act - Revenue Recovery Proceedings - consideration of stay petition - HELD THAT:- This Court in W.P.(C) No.3800/2020 had passed a detailed order after having called the Assistant Commissioner of Law in court with regard to the numbering of appeal and hearing of the stay application. Several writ petitions are pending in this Court seeking redressal of grievance for non-hearing of the appeal, along with stay applications - This writ petition is also of the similar nature and the petitioner is in dilemma. In such circumstances, this Court cannot sit as a mute spectator without coming to the rescue of such litigants.
This writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the application of stay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as the petitioner in such circumstances had not opted for automatic stay in view of the amended provisions of Section 55 (4) of KVAT Act, 2003. Steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, till such time the stay application is disposed of.
-
2020 (7) TMI 230
Issuance of C-Forms - purchase of High Speed Diesel from the suppliers in other States - CST Act - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Division Bench in THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) VERSUS THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CS) (SYSTEMS) VERSUS SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED [2020 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had clearly directed the State and the Revenue Authorities not to restrict the use of “C” Forms for their inter-State purchases of six commodities by the assessees and other registered dealers at concessional rate of tax and they are further directed to permit online downloading of such declaration in “C” Forms to such dealers. The circular letter of the Commissioner dated 31.05.2018 was quashed and the Hon'ble Division Bench also set aside the consequential notices and proceedings initiated against all the assessees throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 229
Revision of assessment order - certain C-Declaration Forms submitted by the petitioner were cancelled and that the petitioner had made corrections in the said declaration forms - HELD THAT:- Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents is not in a position to say why in spite of the letters dt.31.01.2020 and dt.12.02.2020 addressed by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent for return of the original C-Declaration Forms, the 2nd respondent did not return them to the petitioner for rectification/clarification by the petitioner’s vendors, who had issued them to him - Unless the petitioner is returned the original C-Declaration Forms by the 2nd respondent, petitioner would not be in a position to explain whether the said C-Declaration Forms were defective in any manner and he cannot get them rectified by his vendors. Denial of such opportunity to the petitioner has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner.
The 2nd respondent is directed to return the original C-Declaration Forms to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 228
Principles of Natural Justice - purchases made by the petitioner during the said Assessment Year on Electrical Goods (Electrical Motors And Oil Engines) from registered dealers in their States against ‘C’ Forms - COVID-19 pandemic situation - petitioner contends that knowing fully well the impossibility on it’s part to file objections / reply to the pre-Assessment show-cause notice, the 1st respondent had passed the impugned assessment order and the rectification order and that there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- When there is a severe restriction imposed by the State in the nature of lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic it is unreasonable on the part of the 1st respondent to inform the petitioner to file a response to the show-cause notice dt.16.03.2019 served on 20.3.2020, within the period of seven (07) days. The 1st respondent ought not to have denied the petitioner reasonable time to file objections to the show-cause notice and also a personal hearing since the same was specifically sought by the petitioner in the e-mail dt.24.03.2020.
The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three (03) months - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 181
Unblocking of portal to enable the petitioner to access and procure Forms C and Forms F - Sections 6 and 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - petitioner submits that neither CST Act nor the rules framed therein provide for blocking of a portal due to pendency of assessment orders - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that by virtue of power conferred under Rule 5(4)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules, the Commissioner can withhold issuance of declaration Form C to an assessee/applicant provided he passes a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee/applicant - However, in the present case, despite the petitioner highlighting its grievances vide letters dated 25th March, 2019 and 17th May, 2019, the notice under Section 59(2) has been issued on 03rd July, 2020 and that too after receipt of an advanced copy of the present writ petition.
In any event, as admittedly no order has been passed under Rule 5(4)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules till date, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner cannot withhold issuance of declaration Form C to the petitioner in the present case - the present writ petition is allowed and the Commissioner, Delhi Valued Added Tax, is directed to unblock the portal forthwith so as to enable the petitioner to access and procure the requisite statutory Forms (Form C and Form F) provided under Sections 6 and 6A of the CST Act.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 114
Concessional rate of tax - difficulty in obtaining C-Forms - HELD THAT:- The State has, after the date of the above order, filed a Writ appeal in W.A.No.3403 of 2019 challenging the decision in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) VERSUS THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CS) (SYSTEMS) VERSUS SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED [2020 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] that has been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 09.03.2020. Mr.Shaffiq agrees that there is complete identity on facts and in law in the matter before me as well as in the matter considered earlier.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 84
Reopening of assessement - compounding of tax - reversal of tax under Section 25(1) of the 2003 Act - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that the second appeal is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. On going through Ext.P4, the demand was stayed subject to deposit of 20% way back in February 2020 and the amount ordered to be deposited in one month expired on 19.03.2020. The petitioner prima facie do not require any concession but, the Tribunal ought to have imposed the condition of 20% as envisaged under Section 55(4) of the 2003 Act, though strictly not applicable to the second appeal, particularly owing to the fact that there was complete lock down and hardy any business carried out during this period and it was very difficult to generate money and pay the amount.
The percentage of amount reduced from 30% to 20% which would come ₹ 15,83,000/- an odd, rounded to ₹ 16,00,000/- to be deposited in two instalments. The first instalment to be deposited on or before 25.06.2020 and the second would fall on 25.07.2020. Thereafter on compliance of the direction, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the appeal. In case of any failure to deposit the amount, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate action for recovery of the amount in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
