|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 629 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 57
Levy of VAT - Renting of space - Transfer of Right to use - petitioner is a provider of Passive Infrastructure service for the Mobile Telecommunication Operators (MTO) - whether within the scope of VAT or not - Section 4 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - scope of the extended definition of sale in Section 2(33)(iv) under the said Act - HELD THAT:- As per the said definition, transfer of right to use “any goods” for any purpose for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration is a sale. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], such transfer should be to the exclusion of the owner and others and exclusively in favour of the person in whose favour such transfer of right to use is made.
From the facts that has been disclosed in the documents filed before this court, it is evident that there is no exclusive transfer of the temporary shelter or the transmission tower/mast in favour of any one of the Mobile Telecommunication Operators. The space in the shelter and the transmission tower/mast is given on shared basis and charged separately therefore it would not come within the fold of the extended definition of saleSection 2(33) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Thus, it is evident that wherever extended definition of “sale in Article 366(29-A) are attracted the transaction can be taxed both under the provisions of TNVAT Act, 2006 and under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. However, it is for Assessing Officers under the respective enactments to determine the value of the two transactions and collect tax - In the present case, no transfer of right to use goods as contemplated under Article 366(29-A) (d) and Section 2(33)(iv) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is discernable. Even though the temporary shelter and the mast are goods within the means of Article 366(12) and Section 2(21) of TNVAT Act, 2006 yet there is no exclusive transfer to exclusion of others to attract the levy of transfer of “right to use”.
The business model is not based on exclusivity. It is on a shared usage basis of the facility viz., passive infrastructure consisting of temporary shelter, Mast, AC, Genset etc. Therefore, there is no “deemed sale” within the meaning of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution of India and Secion 2(33)(iv) of the Act so as to attract a charge under Section 4 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Though the passive infrastructure of the petitioner are “goods” within the meaning of Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India and Section 2(21) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 yet there is no “transfer of right to use” within the meaning of extended definition of “sale” under Section 2(33)(iv) TNVAT Act, 2006 and Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India so as to attract levy under Section 4 of the said Act - thus, no tax is payable by the petitioner.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2020 (6) TMI 56
Recovery of VAT - supply of petroleum crude - TNVAT Act - It is the case of the respective petitioners that the exploration and supply of petroleum crude oil has taken place outside the State of Tamil Nadu and in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India as defined in the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and therefore no VAT can be levied - HELD THAT:- Petroleum products are liable to pay tax under Entry 41, Part B to the 1st Schedule being declared goods within the meaning of Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956. Therefore, if the sale had taken place within the state, it would be liable to tax under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. There is no doubt there was sale between the petitioners and other co-explorers of petroleum crude oil under the “Crude Oil Sale Agreement”dated 26.9.2003 for the Sale and Purchase of Crude Oil - Whether the sale had taken place within the State of Tamil nadu or not and whether the liability to pay tax would be on the seller and on the buyer under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 would require determination by the Assessing Officer. There is no mechanism provided for payment of tax on the recipient of good on reverse charge basis under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 except in the case of works contract under the Rules made thereunder. An agreement cannot shift the burden of tax on the buyer.
It would not be correct to infer that the liability to pay tax can be shifted to the buyer namely Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. However, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd had agreed to pay tax from and on behalf of the suppliers. Each of the oil-producing companies where liable to pay proportionate tax on the crude oil explored and sold to Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd provided. However, tax is payable only if the sale had taken place within the State of Tamil Nadu. Whether or not the delivery of crude oil from the development area to the delivery point fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu or outside is a question of fact which require to be determined before the respondent - as the case involves disputed questions of fact based on the agreements signed between the parties, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 12
Maintainability of appeal - Requirement of mandatory pre-deposit - appeal came to be dismissed for non-enclosing the receipt of deposit of 20% of the demand as envisaged under Section 48(4)(ii) of the VAT Act - HELD THAT:- This court has taken note of Ground-6 raised by appellant in that case that some time ought to have been granted to the appellant to comply with requirement of Section 48(4)(ii) of VAT Act. By oral submissions, learned counsel also tried to convince this Court that now the appellant, somehow was able to arrange the amount required for the pre-deposit and as such, by recording submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, Annexure A2 order was passed.
Looking to the pleadings of appellant in tax case no.68/2019 and in WP 132/2019, particularly ground no.6 wherein the appellant wanted an opportunity to make the default good. The other thing is that this court while passing orders in tax case no. 68/2019, has recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by now somehow they managed to arrange funds to comply the provision of mandatory deposit. In the aforementioned facts of the case, appellant will not be permitted to raise the different pleas in different proceedings.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 11
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal filed after a delay of nine years, two months and 15 days - HELD THAT:- The reasons given in the application were sufficient to condone the delay. When the affidavit had gone unrebutted and in the affidavit it has been stated that Jaipal was not an employee of the applicant and further it was stated that the applicant was facing financial crunch and the employees were taking voluntary retirement, the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned even though there was a substantial delay.
Having had found that there were sufficient reasons given in the delay condonation application, the delay is being condoned - revision allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 10
Input Tax Credit - manufacturing loss, but also goods which were traded by the petitioner sold as such - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay /revise Input Tax Credit availed on various goods manufactured, is now covered by a decision of this Court in M/S. RAN INDIA STEELS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY / COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (FAC) , CHENNAI [2019 (12) TMI 1305 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that there is no scope for reversal of input tax credit on inputs which get consumed during the course of manufacture as “invisible loss”.
There is no question to denying Input Tax credit availed on goods manufactured and traded by the petitioner unless they were contrary to other provisions of the order. Since the respondent also included the turnover purportedly purchased by the petitioner and sold while confirming the demand, the impugned orders need to be aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 710
Denial of Issuance of statutory Form ‘C’ - inter-state purchases of goods - transit purchases under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - second sale - Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957 - it was held by High Court that In the facts of the present case, the transaction is covered by Section 3(b) and this petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax provided under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
HELD THAT:- There are no requirement to interfere in this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2020 (5) TMI 637
Auction Sale of Attached property - Recovery of tax - petitioner had purchased the properties which were already attached by the Department for the legitimate Government dues - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to have taken necessary care and caution while purchasing the properties from the third respondent. No documents/ papers have been filed by the petitioner to show that he had approached and contacted the office regarding the requirement of any details as regards existence of any charge on the properties. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had never approached the Department, to find out as to whether any dues are payable by the third respondent / existence of any charge on the properties, before purchase of the properties.
In the present case, the petitioner herein purchased the properties from the third respondent only subsequent to the attachment effected by the Department. Further, the petitioner had failed to ascertain the details of arrears payable by his vendor before execution of the sale deed - It is also seen from both the sale deeds executed between the petitioner's vendor and the petitioner, that the vendor has given an undertaking that there is no encumbrance on the properties in question and if any encumbrance arises at a later stage, he would made good the loss on his own.
Reliance can be placed in the case of MRS. MEENAKSHI. J. GANESH KUMAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SRIVILLIPUTHUR AND ANOTHER [2010 (12) TMI 1094 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. The said judgment has been passed under similar circumstances. In that case, the petitioner therein contended that he was the bona fide purchaser, since he purchased the property only after getting encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Srivilliputhur and that when the Department had not attached the property prior to purchase of the same by the petitioner therein, it was not open to the Department to issue the notice impugned therein.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 636
Input tax credit - duty paying invoices - case of petitioner is that the petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit on the strength of invoices issued by dealers who had availed Input Tax Credit on the strength of invoices of dealers whose registrations were cancelled either and/or there was no proof of their sale of goods to the petitioner’s sellers - HELD THAT:- In this case, the petitioner claims to have availed Input Tax Credit on the strength of invoices raised by some of the dealers who had in turn purchased from other dealers who had not shown having sold the goods to the petitioner’s dealers from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods - Since there are disputed questions of fact and the dispute is not purely confined only law, the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within a period of thirty days from date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to other requirements of pre-deposit under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - petitioner dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 635
Recovery of amount alongwith penalty - N/N. 8911/DCE/T(P)/AUC/2012- 13 dated 30.05.2012 - It is the case of the petitioner that she had money transactions with the 3rd respondent and had borrowed a sum of ₹ 50,000/- and in this connection had offered her property as a security for repayment of the aforesaid loan - HELD THAT:- In this case the petitioners property was offered as a security for permitting the ex-license to run a arrack shop. The 3rd respondent was not only required to offer property by way of mortgage but was also required to register the same in favour of the respondents. However, same was not registered - Similarly the information furnished by the Public Information Officer of the office of the Deputy Collector (Excise) vide communication dated 24.04.2015 in response to an application filed by the petitioner on 26.03.2015 has confirmed that the petitioner has not produced Annexure I and II.
There is no clarity in the role of the petitioner i.e, whether her property was offered by her in her capacity as a surety for the arrack license issued to the 3rd respondent or as mortgage or as a bidder herself. Either way in absence of valid registration of the mortgage as is contemplated in the confirmation order dated 14.09.2012, the respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner or her property - there appears to be irregularity in permitting the 3rd respondent to run arrack shop contrary to the confirmation dated 14.09.2012.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 608
Detention of goods - sale of goods during inter-state movement - Jurisdiction of state - immediate release of the detained lorry and the consignment of goods on the ground that the transaction was covered by E1 sales invoice and therefore the transaction outside the purview of the respondents under Tamil Nadu Value Added Act, 2006 - HELD THAT:- If at all, the Check Post authorities at Maharashtra border had found that the goods were not charged to tax on such inter-state sale, they would have detained the goods and the lorry there. In fact, they would have collected appropriate central sales tax before the goods left the Maharastra border under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - As such, no taxable event had taken place within the State of Tamil Nadu.
There was also no scope for invoking Section 72 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 under the circumstances - the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an E-1 transaction cannot be countenanced in the facts of the present case.
Only such transaction would be exempted under section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This is on the underlying principle under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 that subsequent sale of goods in the course of interstate trade and commerce are not taxed twice.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (5) TMI 607
Levy of Entertainment tax - online booking charges - Section 3(7) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 - whether the online ticketing charges quoted by the petitioners would have to be included in the ‘payment for admission’ liable to tax? - HELD THAT:- The petitioners levy an additional charge upon a consumer only when he opts for the online facility and these charges are necessary to defray the expenses incurred by the petitioner for offering this facility to a consumer. They point out that the online booking facility is hosted by third party service providers, such as, BookMyShow and other similar portals, which charge the petitioners a fee for hosting the booking portal. This has to be re-compensated and hence the online booking charge - Each will be rendered meaningless without the other and thus it is only the two events together that render the lottery composite and whole. Applied in the context of the present case, the distinction sought to be made by the petitioner between seating charge and online booking charge is clearly artificial and a distinction without a difference. By purchase of a ticket online the petitioner obtains only a single vested right – that of entry to the theatre and the amounts collected from the petitioners, the seating and booking charges are both relatable to the same entertainment event.
A vehicle is part of the facilities offered and serves to improve or enhance the experience of the entertainment provided as compared to a squatter who could well walk into a drive-in theatre and sit on the seating provided to watch the film. The experience is rendered more pleasurable and the facility offered becomes intrinsic to the process of watching the film itself. Thus, the receipts from such additional facility/benefit should stand encompassed within the charge - Extending this reasoning to the case before me, the access to online booking again indisputably facilitates and smoothens the access to the entertainment. Though there are other modes of booking available, a customer, when he opts for the online booking facility makes a conscious choice as opposed to standing in a queue before a booking counter or deputing another who would purchase the tickets on his behalf. The facility of booking a ticket with the click of a button, seated in the comfort of one’s home is a conscious choice that comes at a cost and without doubt, enhances the experience of watching a film.
The petitioners have also pointed out that the internet and online facility of booking could not have been envisaged in 1939 when the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act was enacted as a result that a charge in this regard will necessarily stand outside the ambit of ‘entertainment’ - the enactment provides for the State to levy a tax on entertainment and such an enactment is expected to be dynamic and take within its stride all progress in avenues of entertainment including facilities incidental and ancillary thereto, such as, in the present case, ticketing and booking facilities.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 606
Re-opening of assessment - notices issued under Section 16 of the TNGST Act, 1959 - levy of penalty under Section 16(2)(c) and 10(3)(1) of TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the petitioner has challenged only the notices issued by the 1st respondent on 24.02.2010 pursuant to the orders dated 16.05.2005 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) - III and a notice issued pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2010 of this Court in W.P.Nos.9771 & 9772 of 2010. All the Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioner including the present Writ Petitions were nothing, but abuse of the court proceeding.
Since the direction of this Court in the Writ Petitions has not been complied with, I am inclined to quash the impugned notice dated 03.06.2010 for failure to comply with the directions of this Court in W.P. Nos. 9771 & 9772 of 2010 thought it is really not open to the petitioner to truncate the assessment proceedings to preliminary and final order - the 2nd respondent is directed to disposed the revision petitions filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid directions of the court in W.P. Nos. 9771 & 9772 of 2010, on 05.05.2010.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 586
Deemed assessment order - challenge on the ground that there is no valid reason for the respondent to call for such records in the light of Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Assessment) Rules, 2007 which was implemented on the eve of Pondicherry VAT Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.12.2007 - HELD THAT: The assessment order in question pertains to 2001 to 2002 for which the petitioner has also filed returns. Since PGST Act, 1967 was being replaced with Puducherry VAT Act, 2007, the Government of Puducherry issued the above Rules. The purpose of the aforesaid Rule was to bring finality to the assessment proceedings which had remained incomplete as on 01.05.2007. The respondents ought to have passed a deemed assessment order and thereafter, initiated fresh proceedings under the provisions of the newly inserted Pondicherry VAT Act, 2007 read with Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Assessment) Rules, 2007. Instead, they delayed in passing deemed assessment order in terms of the aforesaid Rules - there are no merits in the impugned order.
The impugned notice is quashed and the respondent is directed to pass appropriate assessment orders in terms of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Assessment) Rules, 2007 - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2020 (5) TMI 538
Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - power of Excise Officials of the Golaghat district to search and seize any “IMFL” consignments originating from the State of Arunachal Pradesh which is meant for State of Nagaland - HELD THAT:- In the present case in hand, it is the Inspector of Excise, Golaghat (Sadar) who initiated the search in the consignments which were on transit from Arunachal Pradesh to Nagaland purportedly through a specified route from Naharlagun in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to Dimapur in the State of Nagaland via State of Assam through Bandordewa, Tezpur and Golaghat as per the consignment notes. The vehicles were seized on 24.11.2019 and on 25.11.2019 for violation of route as it was seized at a place called Telgarom in the Golaghat district.
The provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act 2000 are taken note of in order to show the legislative intent and purpose of the Government of Assam in Excise Department vesting the sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment upon the officials of Excise department inasmuch as investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the Police Department, the Superintendence over which vests in the State Government.
The report to the learned CJM, Golaghat dated 10.01.2020, records the suspicion of the Excise official about the commission of an offence which he was empowered to investigate due to violation of route indicated in the passes issued by the officials of Arunachal Pradesh. Once such suspicion is recorded, the empowered Excise official is authorized to exercise the power conferred upon a police officer carrying out an investigation under Sections 160-171 of the Cr.P.C. The “investigation” envisaged in the Act 2000 is the one defined under Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer - the action of the Excise official or officials in breaking the digital lock of the consignments falls under Section 165 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 2000. Chapter IX of the Act, 2000 prescribes the penalties and procedure for the offences covered by it. For investigation the offences as mentioned in the report of Excise official requires no proof but a prima facie satisfaction is required and not beyond that.
Merely, the consignments were exported from a State and imported to another one and there being no applicability in both the States of the Act, 2000 that itself cannot be the ground to hold that the Excise officials had no jurisdiction to carry on the search and seizure of the consignments while on transit through an area covered by the force of the Act, 2000 - The jurisdiction exercised for investigation by the Excise officials of the Golaghat district is proper inasmuch as it evolves out of Section 183 under Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C., 1973 through Sections 42 and the investigation part under Section 43 of the Act, of 2000.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 537
Principles of natural justice - reasonable opportunity of being heard denied - levy of Entry Tax - revision dismissed for want of prosecution - HELD THAT:- The records do not reveal in specific terms as to whether the notices were served on the petitioner or not as there is no endorsement as regards receipt of the notices by the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the revision was preferred by petitioner and not by the Revenue and therefore it was the bounden duty of petitioner to be abreast with the dates of hearings. Since the Revision was filed by the petitioner it was his responsibility to be aware of the dates of hearing. The petitioner cannot pass on the buck to anyone else and thus cannot take shelter of non-service of notice as regards date of hearing. The revisional authority has dismissed the revision for want of prosecution - If the petitioner after preferring the revision does not choose to appear on any of the dates fixed petitioner runs the risk of dismissal of his Revision for want of prosecution.
This court does not see any illegality, impropriety or rampant irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Revisional authorities which accordingly does not deserve any interference and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 536
Completion of assessment proceedings - Time Limitation - amendment in Section 25(1), where assessment was five year which was amended to six years - HELD THAT:- The assessment in respect of the period of limitation for reopening has already expired and cannot be reopened in view of the provisions of the Act.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 535
Maintainability of petition - effective alternative remedy by way of Revision - Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - whether the product of the appellant will fall under entry 36 in accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules of Interpretation? - HELD THAT:- There are no authoritative pronouncement of this court or the hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation of the amended provision. Therefore, whether the exercise done by the Ist respondent by invoking the powers under Section 56(1) is sustainable or not, can be decided only on an elaborate consideration into the merits of the issue. In that respect, we perfectly agree with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge that the orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or contravention of the provisions. All the contentions raised herein above can be effectively agitated in a properly constituted Revision Petitions filed under Section 59 of the KVAT Act - the intra-court appeal filed is upheld.
If the appellant prefers a statutory Revision Petition before the Commissioner, the same shall be entertained by the said authority. If any delay condonation application is filed along with the Revision Petition, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition as well as this writ appeal shall be taken into consideration in deciding the question of condoning the delay. So also, if any interim application is filed seeking stay of further proceedings, pending disposal of the Revision Petition, the Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders without any further delay.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (5) TMI 530
Revision of order - change of opinion - Notification No.A-5-1-94/ST-V (55) dated 30.03.1994 - section 9 (2) of Central Tax Act, 1956 read with section 19 (1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - exemption from payment of tax granted on “all kinds of footwear made of PVC and chappals made of rubber and straps there of the sale price of which did not exceed ₹ 50/- per pair”.
Whether proper interpretation has been done by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board by holding that the notification was not general to class of goods, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled for the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
HELD THAT:- The notification in the present case exempting all kind of footwear made of PVC, chappals made of rubber and straps there of the sale price of which does not exceed ₹ 50/- per pair, can never said to be a general exemption, as it is conditioned by specified circumstances - the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board was justified in holding that the exemption granted from payment of tax is not a general exemption and the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 8 (2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
The questions of law are accordingly, answered in affirmative.
-
2020 (5) TMI 520
Validity of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act 18 of 2002) dated 26.05.2002, w.e.f. 01.04.2002 - ilevy of tax on imported goods at 20 % vide Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act 18 of 2002) dated 26.05.2002, w.e.f. 01.04.2002 as substituted by Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 2002) inserting Section 3(2-C) and Eleventh Schedule (Item 9) to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 dated 26.05.2002, w.e.f. 01.07.2002 - Agreement dated 28.02.1995 on Trade and Commerce between the Government of Kindom of Bhutan and the 3rd respondent Union of India.
HELD THAT:- The decision cited by the petitioner in the context of anti-dumping duty in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. G.M. EXPORTS & OTHERS [2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT] is of no relevance. There the Supreme Court was concerned as to whether anti- dumping duty imposed with respect to imports made during the period between the expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the imposition of the final anti-dumping duty is legal and valid? - In the said decision there is no reference to the decision of the Division Bench of this court in SONY INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI [2007 (9) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] though it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [2016 (11) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT] is also of no relevance to the facts of the present case as it was concerned with entry tax.
The issue canvased by the petitioner here has already been negatived by the Division Bench of this Court in the above case. The issue having attained finality in Sony India Ltd and others Vs. CTO, it is no longer open for this court to either refer the issue to a Division Bench of this Court or take a contra view - learned counsel for the petitioner has also neither produced any other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has taken a contrary view nor has produced any order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court staying operation of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Sony India Ltd and others Vs. CTO.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (5) TMI 502
Principles of Natural Justice - Evasion of tax - fake bills - stand of the petitioner is that the documents purported to have been sent vide letter dated 02.11.2011 were never received and therefore, the petitioner has not been able to file a reply - HELD THAT:- Though a detailed counter has been filed by the respondent, there is no specific denial to the allegation of the petitioner that the documents had not been served in person. Since the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the documents and the impugned order is merely based on the averments that the documents were served to one Tmt.Leelavathi on 05.12.2011, the impugned order is quashed by remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders.
The petitioner is therefore directed to appear before the respondent on the 1st instance before the 1st respondent on 30.06.2020 to collect the documents specified in letter dated 02.11.2011 - petition allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
