Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Jul 29 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Rajsheel Society vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax Counsel  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

IRCON International Limited, New Delhi vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary Institute Finance, Babu Bhawan and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2014]

Parisons Agrotech Private Limited, Represented by its Director N. K. Haris, Kozhikode vs State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, Taxes Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram  [KERALA HIGH COURT, 10 Jul 2014]
Indirect Tax - Sales Tax - Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, s. 63 - Appellant was a registered assessee - Assessment in the year in question was completed on 24-1-2009 fixing the total and taxable turnover of Rs.19,90,425/ - Notice dtd. 10-8-2010 was issued proposing to disallow the claim of stock transfer amounting to Rs.6,38,18,405/ and to assess the same as interstate sale - In the original assessment exemption was granted to the appellant on the basis of 'F' Forms issued by the consignment agent of the appellant - Said 'F' Forms were issued and were acted upon by the assessing officer - According to the revenue, subsequently it was understood that 'F' Forms had been invalidated - It was on the said basis that the order was sought to be revised u/s. 37 of the Act - Commissioner by the impugned order found that in the instant case the 'F' Form declaration was invalid at the point of issue itself, but information came about the invalidity only subsequently - Hence, instant appeal - Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was right in invoking the powers conferred u/s. 37 of the Act on the material which was not available with the assessing authority at the time of passing of the order -

Held, instant was a case where the assessment was completed granting exemption to a substantial turnover on the basis that there was no interstate sale and the matter was covered by 'F' Forms - Assessment was completed by order dtd. 24-1-2009, which was subsequent to the invalidation of the 'F' Forms being intimated was the finding of the Commissioner - This was not a case where at the time of the transaction entered into the F Form was valid as per intimation subsequently received and it was cancelled subsequently and the case of the revenue, on the other hand, was that the invalidation was there at the point of issue and the information was received only subsequently - Subsequent receipt of materials which show the original order to be passed against the interest of revenue, would suffice for the Commissioner to exercise power u/s. 37 of the Act - Impugned order upheld - Appeal dismissed.


Harvel Agua India Private Limited vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2014]
VAT - H.P. VAT Act, 2005, s. 9 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.47 r. 1, ss. 114, 151 - Review petition - Tax exemption - Entitlement - Petitioner claimed that he was supplying sprinklers from outside the State for which sale, the invoices were being raised from Gurgoan and the supply was being made to the farmers in Himachal, the same was inter-State sale and fell under the category 'agricultural implement, manually operated or animal driven' and was therefore, specifically exempted from tax under Schedule 'B' notified by the State of Himachal Pradesh u/s. 9 of the VAT Act - Said contention of petitioner was negated by the judgement under review - Hence instant review petition - Whether impugned order could be reviewed as claimed and whether claim of petitioner was exempted from tax -

Held, it was found by the AO that company had created false documents by generating invoices in the names of the farmers from the State of Haryana - While in fact, the goods were transported to the State of Himachal Pradesh and the name of consigner was declared the department of agriculture - Whereas it was proved on record that company was not supplying the agriculture implements i.e. manually operated and animal driven agriculture, rather installing a complete irrigation system which required material like pipes, joints, sockets, sprinklers etc. and these were not exempted from tax (VAT) - Petitioner for all purposes had made intra-State sales, which were liable to payment of VAT - Thereafter by detailed analysis of the factual and legal aspects, HC further came to a categorical conclusion that sprinkler in question was not an agriculture implement nor it was driven manually or by animal and therefore, was not exempted from tax in Schedule-B of the Act and consequently petitioner was not entitled to exemption of tax - Petitioner failed to make out a case within the four corners of s. 114 r/w O. 47 r. 1 and s. 151 CPC - Review dismissed.


Larsen and Toubro Limited W/o Late V. R. Vidyadhar vs (1) State of Karnataka, REPresented by Principal Secretary to Government Finance Department Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore; (2) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Karnataka, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya Gandhinagar, Bangalore; (3) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2014]

Ricoh India Limited Lucknow Through its Branch Finance Manager vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes Uttar Pradesh Vibhuti Khand Gomti  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
VAT - Indirect Tax - Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, s. 57 - A/y 2009-10 - Reopening of assessment order - Stay - Respondent (authority) reopened the assessment case of petitioner (Company) for A/y 2009-10 and thereafter proceeded to assess the tax - First Appellant Authority on the application granted a stay to the extent of 60% - Order of Appellant Authority was assailed by petitioner before Tribunal on the ground that during inspection by the SIB forms 38 and 39 were found but the same did not belong to petitioner and infact referred to Transporter 'S' - Tribunal granted stay to the extent of 75% - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant revision petition only against the grant of stay to the extent of 75% - Petitioner contended that in Trade Tax Revision no. 70 of 2012, Court had modified order of Commercial Tax Tribunal by order dt.23-5-2012 to the extent that petitioner was directed to furnish the bank guarantee of the remaining 15% amount within a period of 15 days -

Held, since the company was the same and stand taken by petitioner with regard to its financial status was the same as taken in the revision no. 70 of 2012, petitioner being same Company was entitled to the benefit of the relief as granted in the Trade Tax Revision no. 70 of 2012 - Impugned order was modified to the extent that petitioner should furnish bank guarantee of remaining 25% of the amount within a period of 15 days - Revision disposed of.


Carrier Aircon Limited (Now Known As Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited) vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Sbee Cables (India) Limited vs (1) Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (3) Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 07 Jul 2014]

Super Fashion Fasterners Private Limited, Meerut vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 04 Jul 2014]

Catering Inn Represented by Its Proprietor Chitra Bail, Bangalore vs (1) State of Karnataka, Bangalore; (2) Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore; (3) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 04 Jul 2014]

T. V. L. Shakeel Garments Represented by its Proprietor M. Abdul Salam, Madurai vs (1) Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai; (2) Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Jul 2014]

Class India Private Limited, Bangalore vs (1) Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore; (2) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore; (3) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chamarajpet, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 03 Jul 2014]

Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited Represented by Anitha R Jain, Bangalore vs (1) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore; (2) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes In Karnataka Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Bangalore; (3) State of Karnataka, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2014]

H. K. Impex Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 25 Jun 2014]
Excise - VAT - Indirect Tax - Central Excise Act 1944 - Central Excise Rules 2002, r. 26 - Rebate - Penalty - Challenged - Appellant was engaged in export of stainless steel utensils under claim of rebate of duty paid on raw materials used in manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils in its factory and its two job workers - Investigations conducted by officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) revealed that raw materials shown purchased were never brought to factory of appellant or to premises of two job workers, declared with department and that stainless steel utensils, which were exported, were procured from other manufacturers - Adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Rs. 1,22,82,044/- along with interest against appellant on account of erroneously sanctioned rebate and also rejected rebate claim to tune of Rs. 2,20,91,410/- - Penalties were imposed upon appellants under 1944 Act and r. 26 of the 2002 Rules - Hence instant appeal - Whether the order passed by Authority was sustainable -

Held, it was observed that GoI issued Notification for grant of rebate of central excise duty paid on materials used in manufacture of export goods - Essential requirements of notification for claiming rebate were that duty paid materials, purchased directly from material manufacturers or from registered dealers were actually received by manufacturer of export goods, that the same were actually used in manufacture of export goods and that export goods so manufactured were actually exported - If any of these essential requirements was not met with, claim of rebate under notification should not be sanctioned/ paid - Court found that after Revenue started its investigations regarding alleged fraudulent rebate claims by appellant, Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) authorities obtained copies of various documents from Central Excise Department on issue and commenced independent investigations from VAT angle - During investigation statements of transporters were recorded by Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities in their own language 'Hindi', which indicated that inputs in fact had been transported and delivered to factory of appellant or to its two job workers which contradicted statements recorded by DGCEI in English - These transporters confirmed transportation of inputs from factory premises of appellant to its two job workers -

Input suppliers had deposed before MVAT authorities that inputs were delivered at premises of appellant or at premises of two job workers - Thus, two set of statements of same persons on same issue of transportation of inputs by two investigating authorities were contradictory to each other - Report of MVAT authorities revealed that two job workers of appellant had very large manufacturing capacity and had huge machinery for manufacture, and had incurred huge electricity expenditure - Copy of said MVAT Report was not properly appreciated by adjudicating authority - Adjudicating authority nowhere tried to verify from records of Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction over factory of appellant to know whether any additional intimations had been filed that mentioned names and addresses of more job workers - Appellant placed on record that such additional intimations were actually filed with jurisdictional DC/ AC, which might have bearing on appellant's rebate claims - Thus, order passed by adjudicating authority was set-aside and matter was remanded back to Adjudicating authority for deciding the same - Appeals allowed.


Fortuna Projects, Bellary Road, Above Hero Honda Showroom, Represented by its Partner S. V. Naresh Kumar, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vat Division, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2014]

R. K. Developers Represented by Its Managing Partner Ramesh Kumar S/o Chudappa Salian vs (1) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Mangalore; (2) Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 20 Jun 2014]

Arihant Engineering Works vs CCE & ST., Vadodara  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 17 Jun 2014]

Furtado Food Products, Airody vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn) DVO, Maidan  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2014]

Radha Raman Hospitality Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Aditya Fatepuria, Bangalore vs (1) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore; (2) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2014]

Metro Polymers, Represented by Its Managing Partner K. M. Ashraf, Thrissur District vs (1) Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Thrissur; (2) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Thrissur  [KERALA HIGH COURT, 10 Jun 2014]

Sampige Bar and Restaurant, Bangalore, Represented by its Proprietorix Suvarna vs (1) Department of Commercial Taxes Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government; (2) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Bangalore; (3) Excise Inspector Gokul Range, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 09 Jun 2014]

Sushruta Medical Aid And Research Hospital Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director, Bangalore vs (1) State of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Bangalore; (2) Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Bangalore; (3) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Bangalore  [KERALA HIGH COURT, 03 Jun 2014]

L. Dayananda vs (1) Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2) Commercial Tax Officer(Audit)-2, Bangalore; (3) Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes State of Karnataka  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 02 Jun 2014]

Star Rice Industries Private Limited vs State of Haryana and others  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 30 May 2014]

J. K. Tyre & Industries Limited vs State and others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 29 May 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer