|
Advanced Search Options
VAT / Sales Tax - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 27514 Records
-
2024 (1) TMI 1263
Maintainability of petition - requirement of pre-deposit - it is contended that though the impugned order of the appellate authority is further appellable before the Tribunal but the said forum is not available at present - HELD THAT:- List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of April, 2024.
If petitioner makes deposit of further 20% of the disputed remaining unpaid interest within two weeks from date and files proof of payment of the same before the authority concerned, no recovery proceeding shall be taken against the petitioner. This interim order shall continue till 30th April, 2024 or until further order whichever is earlier.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1154
Maintainability of Revision application GVAT Tribunal - Cancellation of registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - whether the Revision Application filed by the petitioner under Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act would be maintainable before the Tribunal when the order for cancellation of registration is passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act? - HELD THAT:- It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner passed the order under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act under the delegated powers of the Commissioner. That means, the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the powers of Commissioner under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act. Therefore, considering the provision of Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act, any application made to the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner is to be treated as Revision and would be maintainable before the Tribunal only.
The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 27(5)(i) read with Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act is not maintainable in view of provision of Section 73 of the Act because, as per Section 73, an Appeal of every original order not being an order mentioned in Section 74 passed under the Act is maintainable - In the facts of the case, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not an original order but is a revisional order under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act and therefore, Appeal under Section 73 would not be maintainable, but only Revision before the Tribunal under Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act would be maintainable.
The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for considering the Revision Application No. 59 of 2021 on merits - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1115
Imposition of penalty u/s 10(b) r.w.s 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - unauthorized use of Form C - bona fide belief - existence of mens rea or not - burden to prove on Revenue - HELD THAT:- In the present case, purchases of valves, regulator, PP caps, aluminum seal, etc. are not mentioned in the registration certificate and use of Form – C could not be demonstrated by the revisionist that the same are covered under the word “container” was under bonafide belief or under mistake of fact as on remand, notice was issued, but the revisionist failed to bring on record any cogent materials to justify the bonafide belief and therefore, a finding of fact was recorded by the assessing authority, which was not challenged by the revisionist, either in the first appeal or in second appeal. Only legal submission on mens rea was raised. Even otherwise, the word “container” mentioned in registration certificate cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be connected with the items purchased by the revisionist, i.e., valves, regulator, PP caps, Aluminum Seal, etc.
The impugned judgements & orders passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in these revisions do not require any interference by this Court as there is no infirmity in the same.
Both the revisions are dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1114
Condonation of delay of 1365 days in filing the appeal - sufficient reason for delay or not - contrary to the decision of Supreme court in the matter of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] or not - HELD THAT:- The delay is explained by the authorities and the appeal is required to be heard by the Tribunal, as so much time has already elapsed - also, the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the appeal within four months from date.
The revision petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1113
Levy of penalty u/s 54(1) (14) of the U.P. VAT Act - Form- 38 was not downloaded and printed from the official website but has been taken as screenshot - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the record, it reveals that earlier also, screenshots were taken of the Form- 38 from the website of the department and three forms were submitted with the department to which no objection were raised, but in the case in hand, the goods were in question were intercepted at Kanpur and penalty proceedings were initiated against the revisionist. Since, earlier four Forms bearing No.00015116, 00015118 & 00015119 were submitted to which no objection was raised about the intention of the revisionist to evade the tax, it is clear that the revisionist was no intention to evade the payment of tax to the State Government. Further, there is no specific finding recorded by the authorities which shows the intention of the revisionist to evade the tax.
This Court in the case of Protein Impax Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad [2022 (3) TMI 859 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that in absence of any cogent finding as to intention to evade tax, levy of penalty under Section 54(1) (14) of the Act, is unsustainable.
Earlier on three occasions, the department has accepted Form-38, which was taken as screenshot, without raising any objection, hence in the present case, it cannot be attributed any intention of the revisionist to evade from paying the tax.
The question of law is answered in favour of the revisionist and against the opposite party - the revision is Allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1083
Validity of assessment proceedings - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 makes the provisions of the relevant state sales tax law applicable to proceedings for assessment, reassessment, recovery and enforcement. Therefore, the provisions of the TNVAT Act become applicable. Section 27 of the TNVAT Act enables the Tax Department to undertake reassessment in respect of escaped assessment of tax provided such reassessment is undertaken within six years from the date of assessment. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the TNVAT Act provides for deemed assessment. The proviso thereto prescribes that assessment shall be deemed to have taken place on 30.06.2012 with regard to specific assessment years, including assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, with which we are concerned.
The question of limitation should be determined on the basis that the limitation period is six years from the date of assessment.
Assessment year 2006-2007 - HELD THAT:- The respondent relies on pre-assessment notice dated 19.11.2012. Although the pre-assessment notice bears an endorsement, on the basis of the said endorsement, it is not possible to ascertain as to who acknowledged receipt. The said endorsement does not contain the name of the person who purportedly acknowledged receipt or bear the rubber stamp of the petitioner. It should also be noticed that the reminder notice dated 12.07.2018, which appears to be the next notice for the relevant assessment year, was issued after the period of limitation expired in June 2018. On the basis of documents placed on record in these proceedings and in view of the petitioner's assertion that he did not receive notice dated 19.11.2012, it is concluded that proceedings relating to assessment year 2006-2007 have not been shown to be within the period of limitation prescribed by statute.
Proceedings relating to assessment year 2007-2008 - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any evidence that the assessee received assessment order dated 16.10.2012 and in the absence of proof of service of any notices within the limitation period of six years computed from 30.06.2012, the assessment order for assessment year 2007-2008 also warrants interference.
The writ petitions are allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1082
Input tax credit - denial in respect of the export transaction - power of suo motu revision against an order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer or Sales Tax Officer - HELD THAT:- This issue has become academic. More so, when as against the assessment order the writ petitioner had filed an appeal and when the matter was fixed at the appellate stage, an authority who is junior than the appellate authority can obviously not exercise this power of suo motu revision. Above all a Senior Commissioner who is none other than the Commissioner of Sales Tax being a superior authority has sufficient jurisdiction to exercise the power of suo motu revision - the said ground raised by the writ petitioner does not appear consideration and accordingly stands rejected.
Input Tax Credit - denial on account of payment made to third party on behalf of the selling dealer - HELD THAT:- It is a well settled legal principle that Input Tax Credit is a form of concession provided by the legislator and it is available only if the conditions stipulated are fulfilled. Sub-rule(8) of rule 19 makes it clear that the payment has to be made to the selling dealer by means cheque or demand draft or by means of electronic mode. Therefore, the writ petitioner is precluded from adding words to a stature to state that he will be entitled to the benefit of Input Tax Credit though he is not paid the amount to the selling dealer but to a third party based on certain instructions. The concession can always comes with conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled the concession is not available. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal in this regard deserves to be confirmed.
Thus, no grounds have been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the learned tribunal - the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1054
Non-compliance of the mandatory provisions laid down under Rule 63(5) of the U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008 read with Section 57(8) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 - manner and procedure of appeal / summary disposal - whether principle of best judgement assessment can be resorted to on the basis of presumption and surmises, without any material on record or not? - HELD THAT:- From perusal of Section 57 of the Act, 2008 it emerges that the same pertains to Commercial Tax Tribunal. Section 57(5) of the Act 2008 provides that the manner and procedure of summary disposal of appeal shall be as may be prescribed. Section 57(8) of the Act, 2008 provides that the Tribunal after calling for and examining the relevant records and after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard or as the case may be after following the procedure prescribed in Section 57(8)(a) of the Act, 2008 may confirm, cancel or vary such order or (b) set aside the order and direct the assessing or appellate or revising authority or the Commissioner to pass a fresh order or (c) order such amount of tax, fee etc realized in excess to be refunded - the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure are akin to Rule 63(5) of the Rules 2008.
From perusal of the judgement of this Court in the case of Ved Ram [2004 (7) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] it emerges that this Court has held the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure to be mandatory and that the first appellate court while delivering the judgement is required to set out the points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reason for the said decision.
This Court has further held that failure to comply with these provisions would not be a mere irregularity but would render the judgement nugatory.
Accordingly, when the impugned judgement of learned Tribunal is seen in the context of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ved Ram vis a vis the provisions of Section 57(8) and Section 57(5) of the Act, 2008 read with Rule 63(5) of the Rules, 2008 it clearly emerges that learned Tribunal has patently erred in neither noting the points for determination nor giving the reason for such decision thereon.
The order impugned dated 19.03.2008 is set aside - the revision is allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1017
Validity of an assessment order - notices issued under Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- Rule 10(2) of the TNVAT Rules mandates production of the original tax invoices. On this issue, however, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has all the original tax invoices in its custody and would produce the same for inspection by the Assessing Officer. The third finding relates to alleged non-submission of the purchase ledger account. Regarding this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the relevant ledger accounts were provided.
The conclusion that follows is that the Assessing Officer did not duly consider documents such as invoices, declaration letters and bank statements, which were provided by the petitioner, and thereafter indicate as to why those documents do not adequately satisfy the requirement of establishing the genuineness of purchase in respect of the ITC claim - these writ petitions are disposed of by remanding these matters for re-consideration by the Assessing Officer.
-
2024 (1) TMI 957
Process amounting to manufacture - blending and packing of tea - after the processing tea remained tea - HELD THAT:- The observations of this Court in CHOWGULE & CO. PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1980 (11) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] with reference to order of reference in Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. [1959 (7) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] must be construed in the distinct factual matrix and different goods involved. The order of the Bombay High Court was not applicable to the facts of the case in Chowgule & Co. Private Limited as in the former the case concerned blending of tea which is also the subject matter of this case; whereas the goods involved in Chowgule & Co. Private Limited was a particular kind of ore contraction which required a mixing up of several type of ores in particular quantities and in a particular manner and a procedure which involved a process and hence the same was covered within the definition of manufacture.
However, in the instant case, mere mixing of different types of tea only for the purpose of marketing as tea and not a particular type of tea does not involve any process/manufacture within the meaning of the definition.
The High Court rightly answered the questions of law raised before it in favour of the respondent-assessee and consequently, sustained the orders of the Commissioner appeals and Tribunal which had rightly set aside the order of the Assessing officer.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 930
Validity of demand of VAT and penalty - suppression of the sales/stock difference - use of tracing paper - Validity of proceedings under Section 29 of the HVAT Act - requirement to issue notice in the Form VAT-N3 - HELD THAT:- The said form gives the format of the penalty, which is proposed to be levied under Section 38 of the Act. It is after a proper due opportunity and the assessment having been done and thereafter penalty is levied under Section 38 of the HVAT Act, which is three times as per the requirement. The order dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure A-2), therefore, is apparently passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal as noticed above after recording the affirmed findings that the penalty under Section 38 of the HVAT Act has been levied.
The question as such sought to be raised that proceedings were under Section 29 of the HVAT Act is without any substance keeping in view that notice under Section 38 of the HVAT Act was issued and the assessee failed to respond to the same.
There are no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 929
Sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or not - whether goods purchased outside Andhra Pradesh and used in works contracts within the state constituted an interstate sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. - HELD THAT:- Relying upon the decision in the case of M/S. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) , HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [2015 (12) TMI 470 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], there was yet another decision passed by this Court in M/S. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD., HYD VERSUS ASST. COMMR CT LTU, HYD 3 OTHERS [2021 (11) TMI 165 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], whereby the writ petition filed by the assessee was allowed and the matter stood remanded back to the authorities concerned for a fresh consideration, setting aside the previous order passed by the Revisional Authority.
Given the aforesaid judicial precedents from this High Court and also considering the issue raised in the present Tax Revision Case being similar if not identical, therefore the present Tax Revision Case would stand squarely decided in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
The present Tax Revision Case therefore being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly, rejected.
-
2024 (1) TMI 880
Extension of period of limitation of assessment orders - Anti dated orders - HELD THAT:- The actual provision would be Section 62 of the Act under which the said order could be challenged. A perusal of the appeal filed would go on to show that various issues were raised including the fact whether the orders passed by the Commissioner were ante-dated only for the purpose of saving the limitation. The fact that notice had not been issued and whether the limitation would be extended in a wholesale manner or opportunity of hearing had to be granted to the concerned persons was the issue to be decided by the Tribunal. The substantial question thus which was to be considered by the Tribunal was brushed aside solely on the ground that reference had been made to Section 63 of the Act in the heading of the appeal.
It is settled principle that the heading of the appeal or an application is not what is to be considered by the Appellate Authority which is a creature of statute but it has to decide substantially the issue which has been raised before it.
Merely on account of the fact that the assessment order was also challenged on merits was not a ground to reject the case on technicalities that a wrong section had been mentioned. Resultantly, petitions are liable to be allowed on this ground itself and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal.
The valuable rights of the appellant has thus been taken away as decision had not been taken on merits regarding the issue of extension of limitation by the Commissioner which can be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 62(1)(c) of the Act. Resultantly, the order of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2019 also cannot be sustained on this ground that firstly it has to decide the first 3 appeals on the question whether the extension could be granted by the Commissioner but it has put the cart before the horse.
The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the issues in a consolidated manner on merits - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 816
Initiation of Suo moto revision proceedings - whether the Commissioner and/or Additional Commissioner could have initiated suo motu revision proceeding on the same set of grounds on which, earlier, the said authority itself granted sanction for initiation of review proceedings by the adjudicating authority?
HELD THAT:- It is not a proper course of action to be adopted in approaching the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for initiation of suo motu revision proceeding, on its own motion, on the same set of facts in respect of which Commissioner of Commercial Taxes itself granted sanction for initiation of review proceedings.
Under the scheme of JVAT Act, there is statutory provision for appeal and statutory provision of revision before Commercial Taxes Tribunal and, if the department was not satisfied with the original adjudication order and/or the order by which review proceeding was dropped, it was open for the department including Commissioner to direct the competent authority to prefer statutory Appeal and/or statutory Revision before the competent authority in terms of Section 79 and 80(1) of the JVAT Act. However, in our opinion, it was not open for the Revenue particularly, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to initiate suo-motu revision proceeding, that too, on the mere filing of a letter by writ petitioner-DCCT.
From bare perusal of Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act, it would transpire that the Commissioner may, on its own motion, “call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any order has been passed.” In the present case, from the records of the proceeding of Additional Commissioner, it transpires that although Additional Commissioner has recorded in its order that he has perused the records of the assessment proceedings, but there is no such evidence to that effect available in the records.
It is pertinent to indicate that the jurisdictional fact of assuming jurisdiction under Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is calling for records of proceeding pertaining to any order and, thereafter, satisfying itself that said order requires interference by the said authority. In the instant case, aforesaid jurisdictional fact itself is absent and the Additional Commissioner, merely on the strength of a letter written by DCCT, initiated suo motu revision proceedings without even calling for records of the case and without even examining the orders in question - the Commissioner has acted beyond the power conferred to it under Section 80(4) of the JVAT Act is in accordance with law and requires no interference by this Court.
Thus, the orders passed by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes dated 25.04.2019 suffer from various illegalities and infirmities and the same have been rightly set aside by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi, vide its order dated 28.02.2020.
Application dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 815
Seeking release of detained goods and vehicle of petitioner - penalty - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioner is coming forward pay 200% of the penalty amount, which was imposed by the respondent vide notice dated 21.11.2023.
The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the penalty amount, which was imposed by virtue of impugned notice dated 21.11.2023, to the respondents and for the remaining 75%, he is directed to execute bank guarantee in favour of the respondents - Upon the deposit and execution of the bank guarantee as stated above, the respondent is directed to release the petitioner's vehicle along with the goods immediately.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 768
Inclusion of coal unloading charges in the value of goods defined u/s 2(h) Entry Tax Act 2007 which are incurred for emptying the railway wagons within the stipulated time after the transportation of goods into the local area - imposition of entry tax on Loco Diesel Charges and Salary of Loco Staff incurred for bring coal from Dadri Plant to Coal Handling Plant after the transportation of goods into the local area - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Tribunal erred in law in not considering the issue as to whether the charges with regard to both the issues were incurred prior to entry of the goods in the local area or were incurred subsequent to entry of goods in local area - questions are answered in favour of the revisionist and against the revenue. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.
Imposition of entry tax in the hands of the applicant on purchases made by contractors against 20 Form 38 - HELD THAT:- There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal being the last fact finding body. Accordingly, this question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (1) TMI 767
Condonation of delay of 362 days in filing the appeals - State officials failed to file appeal in time - HELD THAT:- The State officials had proceeded with leisure while doing all other work except attending to the filing of the present appeals. A Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS SABHA NARAIN & ORS. [2021 (1) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT] has opined upon such kind of cases which are called as ‘certificate cases’ and imposed heavy costs for wastage of judicial time.
It is refrained from imposing the costs while noting that the lead case itself was already dismissed on the same ground but the State apparently learnt no lesson while filing the present set of appeals thereafter. Rather the first appeal was dismissed on 27.03.2019 by the Coordinate Bench and inspite of that the present set of appeals was only filed on 05.10.2019. It is, thus, apparent that the concerned officer has paid scant regard to the fact that the lead case has also been dismissed, but despite that took no steps to file the appeals expeditiously thereafter.
Thus, no ground has been made out to condone the delay in the peculiar facts and circumstances as the reasons given in the applications are not acceptable and the cogent reasons are missing to condone the lax approach of the authorities - applications for condonation of delay as well as main appeals are dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 714
Denial to grant of subsidy to the petitioner - seeking direction for setting aside the Notification dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-14) and Notification dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-18) seeking to amend the policy for grant of subsidy being against the law and contrary to the Enterprises Promotion Policy, 2015 - HELD THAT:- In the case of Pournami Oil Mills [1986 (12) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT] it was a case where the State Government has granted package of concessions to new Small Scale Industries, thereafter the units were set up in response to the first order passed granting concessions. The order granting concessions was subsequently withdrawn by the Government. The Supreme Court held that all the units which have been set up in response to the first announcement made were entitled to claim all concessions on the plea of estoppels.
Thereafter, a similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case M/s Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (8) TMI 519 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court was examining a case where the U.P. State Electricity Board had granted incentives to set up new industries for a particular period. Subsequently, this benefit was withdrawn by the Board. The Supreme Court examined and held that the withdrawal was made on account of any public interest and hence it was held that it was barred by promissory estoppels and the Board had granted the benefit for a period of three years and the benefit could not be withdrawn before three years. The units had already been set up.
The petitioner had set up a small-scale technical textile unit in Village Khera Gani, Tehsil Shahzadpur, District Ambala, which falls in Block ‘C’. The industrial unit was covered as per the Notification dated 17.10.2017 showing categorization of blocks, notified on 02.06.2016 (Annexure P-2). The Haryana Government had issued a policy dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-9) pursuant to the Enterprises Promotion Policy-2015, where power tariff subsidy upto Rs. 2/- per unit for micro and small enterprises, category ‘C’ and ‘D’ blocks was to be provided for a period of three years from the date of release of power connection - The respondents cannot decline the benefit of subsidy in view of the Notification dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-14) as per the rule of estoppels they cannot deny this benefit as the industries have already been set up pursuant to the 2015 Policy and they have complied with all the conditions of the Enterprises Promotion Policy- 2015 (Annexure P-1), Notification dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the Policy dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-9).
The order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-21) passed by respondent No. 3-Uttar Haryaba Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) declining the grant of subsidy to the petitioner, is set aside and direction is being given to the respondents to pay the power subsidy as claimed by the petitioner as per the bills submitted without insisting on the policy decision notification dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-14). It is further being observed that the Notification dated 21.12.2018 (P-14) and 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-18) whereby the policy for grant of subsidy has been amended, will be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively pertaining to the units which were set up after the Notification of the Enterprises Promotion Policy- 2015 (Annexure P-1), Notification dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the Policy dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-9).
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 713
SEZ unit - Wrong declaration of turnover - Alleged variance between the amounts declared by the petitioner in Annual Performance Report (APR) in Form-1 under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 read with Rule 22 of the Special Economic Zones Rules 2006 - HELD THAT:- There are indications that the petitioner was engaged not only in intra-state stock transfer to its branch/depot inside the State but also inter-state stock transfer to its branch/depot outside the State apart from the exports from its factory in Special Economic Zone and its warehouse in Special Economic Zone in the State of Tamil Nadu - In the case of intra-state stock transfer to its branch/depot within the state of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner would have generated Delivery Note in form JJ under Rule 15(3), Rule 15(18), Rule 15(20) and Rule 15(21) of TNVAT Rules, 2007.
In the case of inter-state stock to its branch/depot, outside the State of Tamil Nadu, such branch/depot would have issued a suitable Form-F to the petitioner. Such inter-state stock transfers/depot to its branch outside the State would have been liable to tax under local VAT enactments on further sale from such from its inter-state branch/depot outside the State of Tamil Nadu.
There should have been proper correlation of documents. To the extent, the petitioner was unable to prove intra-state/ inter-state stock transfer to its branch/depot, tax implication would be different under the respective enactments. For inter-state branch/depot transfer outside the State, where the petitioner was unable to produce documents, Section 6(A) 3 of the CST Act, 1956 would be applicable.
Denial of exemption on export under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 will have an impact on assessment under TNVAT Act, 2006. If exports are not proved, such turnovers are liable to be taxed under the TNVAT Act, 2006. Therefore, as sequitur, a revised assessment order under TNVAT Act, 2006 should have been passed by invoking the machinery under the said Act. Demands on such turover cannot be made under CST Act, 1956 in absence of any notice to infer inter-state sale.
The impugned assessment orders dated 12.12.2014 passed by the third respondent for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011- 12 are liable to be quashed - the amount Rs. 423,48,00,000/- which was appropriated vide impugned G.O (MS) No. 32 Industries (MIF.1) Department dated 28.3.2017 is ordered to be refunded subject to final order to be passed by the 3rd respondent - Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 712
Levy of penalty under Section 5B read with Section 7-A(2) of the APGST Act, 1957 - utilization of cement in the execution of the works contract - violation of declaration under the proviso to sub-section 1 - demand on the ground that, since the cement pipes manufactured by the Revenue was predominantly used for execution of the works contract awarded to the assessee themselves, he was not entitled for the purchase of cement at a reduced price - HELD THAT:- The finding of facts by the Tribunal cannot under any stretch of imagination be held to be contrary to law or contrary to the materials which have been taken into consideration for the purpose of reaching to the said conclusion.
A similar view was taken by this Bench while deciding Tax Revision Case No.8 of 2008 and batch on 09.10.2023 [2023 (10) TMI 723 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], wherein in paragraph No.19, this Bench had taken a similar stand while dismissing the Tax Revision Cases filed by the assessee where it was held that A plain reading of the aforesaid proviso would clearly give an indication that when a purchase of cement is made by a manufacturer of a finished good like asbestos sheets, pipes, paint manufacturers, hallow bricks, it would be eligible for purchase of cement at a concessional rate. The petitioner was not a manufacturer of any finished goods like the ones mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Thus, no strong case has been made by the Revenue calling for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal - The view of the Tribunal is also based upon the finding of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of B. SEENAIAH AND CO. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KHAIRATABAD CIRCLE, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [2001 (6) TMI 794 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dealing with the phrase ‘deemed sale’ has held While completing the execution of the works contract the property in the goods passed to the contractee from the contractor, the petitioner, at the time they were incorporated in the laying of the road. Therefore, there was a clear transfer of property in goods, while completing the works contract which would result in sale or deemed sale of goods, liable to tax.
There are no merits in the contentions and submissions made by the Revenue while assailing the order of the Tribunal which is under challenge in the present three Tax Revision Cases - The three Tax Revision Cases therefore stands dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
