9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner from the Central Government - Nutrients Based Subsidy Scheme (NBS Scheme) - HELD THAT:- The essential premise for the petitioner s case, apart from the question whether there could be levy of tax on subsidy granted to the petitioner based on the aforesaid two schemes, is whether there could be a levy on interstate stock transfer and sales made locally in other States. This question incontrovertibly has not been examined and it would be imperative for the authorities to consider the same as it relates to the very jurisdiction to levy taxes on such stocks impacting the reassessment. Further, if the petitioner succeeds in this regard, the impugned order would have to be modified. As such, the impugned order will have to be set aside o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to show cause against the re-assessment. The petitioner was issued Form VAT 275 on 27.03.2017 for production of Book of Accounts, tax Invoices, sale bills, declaration and delivery notes relating to sales or purchases in the course of interstate trade or commerce followed by Endorsement dated 20.11.2017. The petitioner responded to the endorsement by submitting samples sales and purchase invoices and audited statements. Thereafter, a proposition notice was issued on 29.01.2020, and the petitioner submitted its Books of Accounts and Sample Invoices in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the revised proposition notice dated 16.03.2020 was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has attempted to distinguish the same in the premise that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act and the Kerala Sales Tax Act and the provisions of the KVAT Act are different. Further, the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the third respondent has referred to proviso to Section 15[2][e] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without considering Section 15[2][e] which provides for exclusion of the subsidies provided by the Central Government. 4. Sri. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the circumstances preceding the issuance of revised proposition notice dated 16.03.2020 and the petitioner s own conduct subsequent thereto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the matter for reconsideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [the third respondent]. 6. Furthermore, the other contention on behalf of the petitioner that there cannot be a levy of tax on subsidy availed by the petitioner will perforce have to be considered in the light of the dictum by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and the other contentions of the petitioner. The distinction attempted on the ground that the provisions of the KVAT Act are different from the provisions of similar enactment in the State of Tamil Nadu and Kerala would not be permissible if the Hon ble Supreme Court in similar set of circumstances has decided the question in favour of an entity that has received subsidy. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
