|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 629 Records
-
2020 (4) TMI 70
Whether the Tribunal was justified in providing the benefit of exemption of tax to the Respondent contrary to the findings arrived at by the Assessing Authority and that too without considering the adverse material found during survey dated 4/5th July, 2001? - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has accepted the reasoning given by the assessee that the amount of cash of ₹ 12,20,000/- discovered was not utilized towards the sale or purchase of raw material and also that the Assessing Authority could not found any discrepancy in the cash book and various documents and accounts maintained by the assessee and, therefore, the rejection of book of accounts was against the provisions of law. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that from the cash book maintained by the assessee transaction from the date 3.7.2000 to 15.11.2000 the cash of ₹ 12,20,000/- found could not be said to be related to any transaction and nor the said transaction has been pointed out in the assessing order and, therefore, no adverse interference in this case can be made against the assessee and, therefore, the additions made were set aside - No fact could be placed by the State which can persuade this Court to take a view different from the view recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, this question is answered in favour of the assessee as against the the respondent.
Whether the Learned Trade Tribunal was justified in waiving of the interest which was liable under Section 8(1) on the admitted sale turn over like admitted tax? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, Form 3 Kha was not valid for the assessment year in question and, therefore, the tax was rightly levied upon the sale transaction - It is not in dispute in the present case that the assessee himself mentioned certificate in their accounts the turnover to claim benefit of Section 3 Kha, which according to the provisions of the Act were on the face of it not valid and this did not require any deep examination of the issue.
Whether the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is justified ignoring the facts set out in the assessment order which was passed strictly in accordance facts available on records as also the provisions of the Trade Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- It is found that the respondent dealer himself filed the invalid Form 3 -B, contrary to provisions of the Act. It was well within the knowledge of the respondent dealer that 44 Form 3-B were not valid for the financial year 2000-01 and the respondent dealer is liable to pay the tax at full rate i. e. at the rate of 10 per cent but despite the fact, respondent dealer did not deposit the tax at full rate i.e at the rate of 10 per cent and deposited the tax at concessional rate at the rate of 2.5 per cent and deliberately claimed the exemption which was not admissible to him - the Tribunal has wrongly granted relief to the assessee by deleting interest. After rejection of Form 3-b the amount of interest levied on admitted tax was liable to be paid by the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard is in conformity with the statutory schemes.
Revision allowed in part.
-
2020 (4) TMI 69
Evasion of Trade Tax - all materials not considered - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal it is clear that while allowing the revision of the revenue they have not considered the entire material with corrective perspective. The Assessing Authority while exercising the best judgment has extrapolated the figures and assessed the evasion of the total turnover to ₹ 5 Crores as well as this aspect of the matter has not even dealtwith by the Commercial Trade Tax Tribunal which goes to the root of the matter and this is the reason we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the claim made by the revisionist.
The matter is remanded back to the Commercial Tax Tribunal to pass a fresh order after reconsidering the issues raised by the concerned parties - Revision allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (4) TMI 37
Deferral Scheme - deferral availed before reaching the volumes of base sale and base production fixed by the TIIC Limited, Chennai - case of the petitioner is that as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, once the industry crosses the base volume of production, the interest free deferral scheme would come into operation - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for filing appropriate objections. The petitioner is also permitted to adduce evidence and file necessary documents / forms along with their objections.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (4) TMI 36
Classification of goods - rate of tax - H.P. Printer toner and cartridges - whether under the entry computer hardware, software and other computer consumable would include the toner and printer cartridge, which are used alongwith the computer printer? - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the printer is sold along with the 'Cartridge' and is included in the package containing the printer and therefore from the above fact it can be deduced that the printer includes a 'Cartridge' and are sold together. 'Cartridge' being a consumable item has to be periodically replaced/recharged with toner.
This Court is of the considered view that toner cartridges are part of a printer and are liable to be taxed at the same rate as printer. It is the duty of the taxing authority, firstly to see that whether an item falls in any of the category mentioned in the schedule and only when such an item is not found falling in any of the schedule can the same be taxed in the ancillary clause - In the instant case toner cartridge being part of printer, which are sold alongwith printers have to be taxed at the same rate as the printers and not under the residuary provision.
Revision allowed.
-
2020 (4) TMI 4
Maintainability of petition - Input Tax Credit availed in respect of mismatch - appropriate forum - HELD THAT:- This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not sitting as an Appellate Court to examine the merits and demerits of claim of the petitioner. These are disputed questions of facts to determine the rate of Input Tax Credit. Therefore, the present Writ Petitions lack merits.
The cases are remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (4) TMI 3
Benefit under Samadhan Scheme - denial of benefit on the ground that the Assessee has already paid the tax before making an application under the said Scheme - HELD THAT:- There is no error in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and in the absence of the arrears of tax, penalty, interest bearing free as the tax already stood paid, the Assessee by applying under the said Scheme cannot take advantage of reduction of the tax liability to the extent of 50%.
The learned Deputy Commissioner appears to be justified in rejecting such applications filed by the Assessee - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1456
Time Limitation - Validity of summons/preassessment notices - assessment could be made beyond the period of three years or not - Section 24(5) of the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The writ petitions filed by the petitioner are premature and have been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The objections with regard to the limitation and other objections, if any, were required to be filed before the learned assessing authority himself and in that event, the assessing authority, would have record his findings on such objections during the course of assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has ill advised the petitioner to prefer these writ petitions.
The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to raise the objections before the assessing authority and relegated the assessing authority to decide the issue after affording an opportunity of personal hearing on the objections raised - Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1448
Condonation of delay of 469 days in filing the appeal - sufficient explanation for delay was given or not - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court has in STATE OF UP. VERSUS AMAR NATH YADAV [2014 (5) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT] followed its earlier decision in OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] where it was observed Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
More recently, the Supreme Court in THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. VERSUS DEO KUMAR SINGH & ORS. [2019 (5) TMI 1660 - SC ORDER] has reiterated the position in Chief Post Master General holding that The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct. That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.
The Court does not find a satisfactory explanation for a delay of 469 days in filing the appeal to have been offered by the Applicant/Appellant. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1424
Validity of assessment order - liability of the petitioner towards VAT and penalty arrived at by the Assessing Authorities under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner had already paid 12.5% or more of the disputed tax pending appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents are not justified in refusing to grant the petitioner stay of collection of the balance disputed tax and issuing Garnishee orders to the petitioner’s banker for recovery of the balance disputed tax.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1317
Interpretation of statute - Sub Entry 27 of Entry 36 of the IIIrd Schedule - Classification of goods - Ayurvedic Baby Soap - Ayurvedic Tooth Paste - Ayurvedic Mouth Wash - Baby gift pack and - Ayurvedic Baby Powder - eligibility for concessional rate of tax in terms of the newly introduced Clause 27 under Entry No. 36 of the IIIrd Schedule to the KVAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- The 'Authority for Clarification' has found against the assessee on the ground that the products in question do not have therapeutic or prophylactic use and therefore they are not 'medicaments'. It is further stated that Soap, Tooth Paste and Mouth Wash are toilet articles and Baby Powder is more of a toilet article than a cosmetic. In the case of Gift Pack, it is found that the major items in the pack are taxable at 14.5% and that the pack therefore attracts tax at the same rate.
Tooth paste and tooth powder - HELD THAT:- Apex Court in SARIN CHEMICAL LABORATORY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UP. [1970 (8) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] held that Tooth Paste and Tooth Powder are toilet articles and will not be Cosmetics in common parlance. In the above view of the matter, contention raised by the petitioners with regard to Tooth Paste which is one of the products, for which clarification is sought for has to fail.
Baby soap - HELD THAT:- Rule 23 of the Rules of Interpretation specifically excludes Soaps from the purview of Entry 36. In view of the fact that Soaps stand specifically excluded under Rule 23, we are not called upon to decide the question whether Baby Soap is a toilet article in common parlance or not. The clarification given in Annexure-IV order with regard to Soap also is therefore perfectly sustainable.
Mouth Wash - Gift Packs - Ayurvedic Baby Powder - HELD THAT:- The issue with regard to the exigibility of tax at concessional rates under Sub Entry 27 of Entry 36 of the IIIrd Schedule with regard to Baby Powder, Baby Gift Pack and Mouth Wash are issues which require a reconsideration and a reasoned order at the hands of the clarificatory authority.
The findings contained in Annexure A4 order of clarification with regard to Baby Soap and Tooth Paste as contained in the impugned order - With respect to other products the matter is remanded to the 'Authority for Clarification' for reconsideration and a reasoned order on the exigibility of tax to three other products, i.e., Baby Powder, Mouth Wash and Baby Gift Pack.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1261
Levy of Entry Tax - dredgers - ocean going vessels/ships - Machinery or not - Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 - Whether the dredger would partake the character or definition of a machinery as defined under Entry 52 of 1st Schedule of the ‘KTEG Act’ or otherwise?
HELD THAT:- Under the Central Excise Act similar issue came up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.[1986 (9) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], whereunder the Tribunal had held that “dredgers” are to be considered as “ocean going vessels” against which order a Civil Appeal No. 5/87 [1991 (55) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.)] had been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay and the said appeal came to be withdrawn by order dated 7-5-1991.
The statutory authorities under different enactments have consistently held that ‘dredgers’ are to be considered as “ocean going vessels”. In fact, the dredger which has been registered as a ship under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 has also been recognized by the Income Tax Department as a ship.
Thus, the question has to be answered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the petitioner-Revenue by arriving at a conclusion that ‘dredgers’ are ‘ocean going vessels i.e., ship’ and it cannot be termed, considered or held as “machinery” referable to entry 52 of 1st schedule of KTEG Act - revision dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1256
Best Judgement Assessment - KVAT Act - reason for completing the assessment on best of judgment basis is that the petitioner had failed to produce the audited statement along with the returns - HELD THAT:- In view of the limited relief sought and in the light of Exhibit P2- Division Bench judgment of this Court, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P4-rectification application and to pass a reasoned order thereon - In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1-order shall be kept in abeyance.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1154
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Input tax credit - time limitation - validity of the prescription of entitlement of credit of input tax being limited within a time prescription as contained in Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1151
Imposition of penalties u/s 10-A of the CST Act - purchase of High Speed Diesel - allegation that High Speed Diesel purchased by the petitioners for manufacturing process, were not being used fully in the manufacturing process, rather they were being used for other purposes also - offence under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the matter of deletion of High Speed Diesel from the CST registration of the petitioners was not sub-judice before the Appellate Authority. The only matter that was sub-judice before the Appellate Authority was the imposition of penalty upon the petitioners under Section 10-A of the CST Act. Both these issues are separate issues, and it cannot be said that the decision in the appeals filed by the petitioners would depend upon the decision of the High Court in the other pending writ applications. Irrespective of the results in the writ applications filed challenging the deletion of High Speed Diesel from the CST registration, the legality or otherwise of the penalty imposed under Section 10-A of the CST Act may be adjudicated.
There appears to be no reason for dismissing the appeals awaiting the decision of the High Court. The impugned orders are prima-facie not sustainable in the eyes of law - matters are remanded back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication of the appeals filed by the appellants on their own merits - application allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1127
Filing of the appeals before statutory authorities and recovery of dues under various laws in the situation of outburst of Corona Virus pandemic - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. - In the meantime, there shall be ex-parte ad-interim stay of the impugned judgment and order(s).
-
2020 (3) TMI 1126
Levy of penalty - storage of goods even in an undisclosed unregistered godown - Section 66 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - petitioner opted for Compounding of Offences - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it was not merely a case of the goods being found at an unregistered godown, as can be seen from the detention order the allegations also were that on the date of the raid the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents regarding compliance of the provisions of the VAT Act in respect of transport of taxable goods. Section 75 of the VAT Act makes several acts and omissions by a dealer punishable. Had the petitioner contested the notice on merits and opposed the proposal for imposing penalty or handing down punishment, all aspects could have been gone into. The petitioner instead opted for compounding of offence. Thereupon the Superintendent of Taxes passed the composition order. Petitioner now cannot challenge it on merits.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1095
Filing of the appeals before statutory authorities and recovery of dues under various laws in the situation of outburst of Corona Virus pandemic - HELD THAT:- This present scenario of outburst of deadly corona virus is very precarious and sensitive, as the lawyers and the staff rendering assistance to this Court and the Judges are vulnerable, thus in order to prevent such rampant of spread by taking preventive measures, I deem it appropriate to issue general directions to the departments concerned like the banks, financial institutions, Income tax authorities, authorities dealing with the erstwhile KVAT, GST, recovery of tax on motor vehicles and building tax to defer the recovery proceedings or coercive measures till 06.04.2020.
In order to overcome the apprehension that this general order may cause impediment or hindrance to persons who are willing to opt for the Amnesty Scheme, it is made clear that this order will not be an impediment for any of such defaulters to avail the Amnesty scheme as and when such scheme is promulgated or in vogue. It is also made clear that the borrowers of the bank, if want to pay off the dues of the bank, it will be open to them to abide by any of the RBI directives or any other directive which is likely to come into place de hors this order - Similarly, defaulters of GST, KVAT, Building tax, Motor Vehicles tax etc. who are willing to pay the demanded amount subject to certain conditions which the department would have fixed within their power to relax or otherwise, would not be bound by this order.
In cases wherein tax authorities are required to complete the assessment proceedings before 31.3.2020, they can be deferred subject to the order of this Court but it is made clear that the assessees would not raise the objection of limitation - The adjudicating authorities already seized of the proceedings and communicated for appearance on a particular date there is likelihood of the party may be handicapped in not approaching on a fixed date in view of the present situation. In such circumstance, the adjudicating authorities are directed not to pass any adverse order till 06.04.2020.
The Registry is directed to list all the matters pending in this regard batch-wise post 06.04.2020.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1094
Principles of natural justice - opportunity to cross-examine denied - difference on account of certain inter-state transaction reflected in the return as well as the details available from the check post - presumption of certain facts - Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- Pith and substance of the facts revealed, which are not being mentioned again in order to avoid repetition would reveal that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. In case the other evidence which has been sought are not produced, the petitioner can always derive the benefits of provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act enables the authority or the court to presume existence of certain facts. The petitioner can always take the benefit of such provisions at the relevant point of time by making submissions in an appropriate forum and competent authority but not through the process of this Court, as it appears to be a adoption of a dilatory tactics.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1093
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal, after considering the records relating to assessment, passed Ext.P2 order dated 29.03.2010, wherein the Tribunal found that both, the contentions raised by the assessee and the arguments put forth by the Revenue, have not been considered by the authorities below - The Tribunal therefore remanded the matter solely for the purpose of giving the assessee and the Revenue an opportunity to reiterate their contentions with supporting evidences and to enable the assessing authority to pass a speaking order considering all the aspects.
A reading of Ext.P9 would show that the Fast Track Assessment Team, after narrating the factual sequences, only recorded the contentions of the assessee - The manner in which the Fast Track Assessment Team has passed Ext.P9 order is not justifiable. The remand as per Ext.P2 order by the Tribunal was for the sole requirement to consider and meet the objections raised by the petitioner. While the fact being so, the 3rd respondent-Fast Track Assessment Team could not have passed an order in the nature of Ext.P9, without answering the contentions raised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, Ext.P9 order is liable to be set aside.
The case is remitted to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration.
-
2020 (3) TMI 1092
Levy of Interest u/s 24 (3) of TNVAT Act - incorrect availment of deferral for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - adequate reasons for levy of interest given or not - HELD THAT:- This Court, in order to give an opportunity, by treating the impugned orders as show cause notices, directs the petitioner to submit the required documents to correlate the production figure before the authority / respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
