Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Apr 17 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

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited vs State of Jharkhand and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 25 Mar 2014]

T. V. L. Prasad Properties and Investment (Private) Limited, Chennai vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai; (2) Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 21 Mar 2014]

Sarvasri Swasti Power Engineering Limited vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun  [UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 20 Mar 2014]

Chang Foods Private Limited, Chennai vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Mar 2014]

Kanwar Hasan vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 13 Mar 2014]

Sri Rajeswari Agencies Represented by its Proprietor S. Kathiresan, Puduchery vs Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Mar 2014]

Modi Tyre Company Private Limited vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 12 Mar 2014]

Creative Markings and Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 07 Mar 2014]
VAT - Indirect Tax - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, ss. 39(1), 64(1) - Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, rr. 3(2)(1), 3(2)(m) - Returns - Reassessment - Legality - Appellant was Private Ltd Company and dealer engaged in execution of works contract of 'Road marking' - Appellant filed monthly returns declaring total turnover and actual output tax payable - Appellant has claimed deduction towards labor and like charges at 30% of actual contract receipt - Respondent/ACCT (Audit) visited business premises of appellant for audit of books of account and passed reassessment order - Appellant appealed to Appellate Authority and the same was allowed - On appeal Revisional Authority found that order passed by Appellate Authority was erroneous and passed impugned order - Hence instant appeals - Whether impugned order passed by Revisional Authority was justified -

Held, provisions of Act clearly disclosed that if expenditure incurred for executing work contract was ascertainable from books of account maintained by dealer, then he was eligible for deduction as per expenditure he has incurred - If expenditure incurred for work contract was not ascertainable, then provision of r. 3(2)(m) has to be invoked - R. 3(2)(1) of the Rules was not applicable to facts of present case - During of auditing accounts of appellant, respondent clearly noticed that appellant has failed to maintain books of account and also to produce bills and vouchers pertaining to labour charges in execution of work contract - Specific allegation was made that appellant has not produced bills and voucher with regard to work contract carried on by him either before Appellate Authority or before the Revisional Authority - Appellate Authority without looking into bills and vouchers set aside order passed by respondent only on ground that respondent has not verified bills and vouchers - When bills and vouchers have not been produced before respondent, the question of verifying said bills and vouchers does not arise - Order passed by Appellate Authority was contrary to law - Revisional Authority taking into consideration all these aspects of matter revised order passed by Appellate Authority - Revisional Authority also noticed that appellant has failed to produce bills and vouchers and books of account regarding the labor charges in executing work contract - No infirmity or irregularity in said order - Appeals dismissed.


Amco Batteries Limited vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 04 Mar 2014]
VAT - Indirect Tax - Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, 74(7), 74 - Imposition of interest - Maintainability - Petitioner contended that objection to order of Commissioner u/s. 74(7) of the Act was that even though its objection was accepted substantially yet in operative directions Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) u/s. 74 of Act was accepted in operative portion, OHA as Commissioner was called in such cases had directed assessing authority to determine not only tax due after verification but also interest component - Whether OHA could have directed imposition of interest u/s. 74(7) of the Act -

Held, dealer was aggrieved by order and sought modification which was declined - Tribunal's view was that proceedings before OHA appeared to be wide since power of the Commissioner was appellate power - Tribunal indicated that power of OHA to insist upon payment of interest was by way of incidental or supplementary one to enable enforcement of other provisions of the Act - In instant case as was evident from extracted portions of OHA's order, merits of dealer's contentions with regard to assessing authority overlooked that certain concessional rate of tax stood accepted - OHA, yet noticed that question of reduction was likely to arise and directed OHA to determine interest - 2 views might be possible given mandate of s. 42(2) of the Act which required dealers to pay interest in addition to 'amount assessed', yet there could be degree of relativity having regard to circumstances in each case - In instant instance dealer's argument with respect to its entitlement to claim some concessional rate in view of documentation furnished by it was substantially accepted - In these circumstances, direction to recover interest on non-submission due to non-availability of forms in fact amounted to pre-judging the issue - Hence, directions of Tribunal was set aside - Appeal partly allowed.


State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar vs State of Odisha Represented through Principal Secretary, Bhubaneswar  [ORISSA HIGH COURT, 03 Mar 2014]

(1) P. R. Ramachandra Menon; (2) Electrobytes Technologies (India) Private Limited, Represented By Its Director Manoj Varghese Oommen, Kochi vs (1) Commercial Tax Inspector, Commercial Tax Check Post, Walayar; (2) State of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Taxes Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram  [KERALA HIGH COURT, 03 Mar 2014]

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II vs Super Synotex (India) Limited and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Feb 2014]
Sales Tax - Excise - Central Excise Act, 1944, ss. 11A, 11AB, 11AC, 35L, 4, 4(3)(d), 4(4)(d)(ii) - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Excise duty - Deduction - Legality - Respondent/assesse was manufacture of yarn of manmade fibers - Show-cause notice was issued to assessee that assessee had not paid duty on additional consideration collected towards sales tax - A petition was filed before Commissioner and same was dismissed - Aggrieved by order passed by Commissioner, assessee preferred appeals before Tribunal - Tribunal set aside order passed by Commissioner and directed for refund of deposits made during investigation and deposit made in pursuance of order passed by Tribunal - Hence instant appeals - Whether impugned order passed by Tribunal was justified -

Held, unless sales tax was actually paid to Sales Tax Department of State Govt., no benefit towards excise duty could be given under concept of 'transaction value' u/s. 4(4)(d), for it was not excludible - 25% of sales tax collected was paid to State exchequer by way of deposit - Rest of the amount was retained by assesse - That has to be treated as price of goods under basic fundamental conception of 'transaction value' as substituted - Assessee was bound to pay excise duty on said sum after amended provision had brought on statute book - Assessees in all appeals were entitled to get benefit of circular dtd. 12-3-1998 which protects industrial units availing incentive scheme as there was conceptual book adjustment of sales tax paid to Department - But with effect from 1-7-2000 they should only be entitled to benefit of amount 'actually paid' to department - Set off should operate only in respect of amount that was paid on raw material and inputs on which sales tax/ purchase tax was paid - That being position adjudication by tribunal was not sustainable - Determination by original adjudicating authority requiring assessees to deposit or pay whole amount and consequential imposition of penalty also could not be held to be defensible - Orders passed by tribunal as well as by original adjudicating authority was set aside and matters was remitted to Tribunals to adjudicate as far as excise duty was concerned in accordance with principles - Appeals preferred by assessees, challenge pertains to denial of benefit of Act, aforesaid reasoning would equally apply - Submission that concession of excise duty was granted by Excise Department of Central Govt. was not acceptable - On a perusal of circulars Court did not find that they remotely relate to any exemption under Central Sales Tax imposed on goods - Appeals disposed of.


ALD Automotive Private Limited vs Commissioner Trade and Taxes Delhi  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 28 Feb 2014]

Laxmi Transmissions Private Limited vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 25 Feb 2014]

Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan vs Binani Cements Limited and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Feb 2014]
Sales Tax - Indirect Tax - Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989 - Tax exemption - Legality - Revenue was in appeal before SC against the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC in Sales Tax Revision Petition whereby and whereunder the HC had dismissed the revision petition filed by the Revenue and upheld decision of Rajasthan Tax Board by holding that the respondent-unit was a Prestigious Unit and therefore, entitled to 75% tax exemption under the Scheme - Respondent-assessee was a new industrial unit manufacturing cement situated within Panchayat Samiti - Whether Rajasthan Tax Board rightly held 75% tax exemption under the Scheme -

Held, in the instant case, the item 1E was subject specific provision introduced by an amendment in 1996 to the Scheme - Said amendment removed 'new cement industries' from the non-eligible Annexure- B and placed it into Annexure-C amongst the eligible industries - It classified the cement units for eligibility of tax exemption into three categories: small, medium and large - Said categories were comprehensive whereby small and medium cement units have been prescribed to have maximum FCIs of Rs.60/- lakhs and Rs.5/- crores, respectively and large to be over the FCI of Rs.5/- crores - Maximum ceiling for large cement units was purposefully left open and thereby reflects that the intention clearly was to provide for an all-inclusive provision for new cement units so as to avoid any ambiguity in determination of appropriate provision for applicability to new cement units to seek exemption - It left no doubt that what was specific had to be seen in contradistinction with the other items/entries - Provision more specific than the other on the same subject would prevail - It was subject specific item and therefore as against items 1, 4, 6 and 7, which dealt with units of all industries and not only cement, item 1E restricted to only cement units would be a specific and special entry and thus would override the general provision - Proposition put forth by the respondent/Company that the construction which was most beneficial to the assessee should be applied and adopted fails to impress upon SC its application in this case - Howsoever, it was true that the canons of construction should be applied to extract most beneficial re-conciliation of provisions - In case of fiscal statute dealing with exemption, it would require interpretation benefiting the assesse - But the introduction of the subject specific entry vide amendment into general scheme of exemption spoke volumes in respect of intention of the legislature to restrict the benefit to cement industries as available only under Item 1E, which categorically classified them into three as per their FCI - Specific entries being mutually exclusive had been placed so systematically arranged and classified in the Scheme - Construction of provisions should not be divorced from the object of introduction of subject specific provision while retaining other generalized provision that now specifically exclude the new cement industries, which could otherwise fall into its ambit, lest such interpretation would be not ab absurdo (i.e., interpretation avoiding absurd results) - Therefore, respondent-Company would only be eligible for grant of exemption under Item 1E as a large new cement unit in accordance with its FCI being above Rs.5/- crores - Appeal allowed.


JSW Steel Limited vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 19 Feb 2014]

Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow vs Upper Doab, Sugar Mills Limited  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 19 Feb 2014]

Bopanna G. S/o Ganapathy vs (1) Commercial Tax Officer, Walayar; (2) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Walayar; (3) Government of Kerala Represented by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram  [KERALA HIGH COURT, 18 Feb 2014]

Larsen and Toubro Limited vs Commissioner of Value Added Tax and another  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 18 Feb 2014]

United Chloro Paraff vs Sales Tax Officer  [ORISSA HIGH COURT, 11 Feb 2014]
Sales Tax- Indirect Tax - Re-assessment - Petitioner filed petition seeking quashing of notice for re-assessment and direction to opposite party no.2 to communicate the reasons for re-assessment and grant copies of papers, if any, which may have been relied upon - Whether petition filed by the petitioner could be allowed -

Held, re-assessment could be initiated only after formation of an opinion and reasons of such opinion were to be furnished, when sought by the assessee - Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to communicate the reasons for the re-assessment, to the petitioner, before proceeding further - Petition disposed of.


International Hospital Private Limited vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 06 Feb 2014]

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs Gajanan Oil Mill, Khargone  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 03 Feb 2014]

Concorde Motors (India ) Limited Represented by its Head Accounts, Guindy vs (1) Deputy Commissioner (CT) IV Large Tax Payers Unit, Chennai; (2) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai; (3) Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 03 Feb 2014]

Kohinoor Industri vs Commissioner  [ORISSA HIGH COURT, 28 Jan 2014]

IKEA Trading (India) vs Value Added Tax Officer and another  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 27 Jan 2014]
VAT - Indirect Taxes - Refund - Liability - Petitioner registered dealer was exporting home furnishing products, including carpets, durries, fabrics, plastic articles, lamps, soft toys etc - Petitioner during the course of VAT proceedings filed objections to AO determinations - Tribunal accepted that argument and directed refund of amounts claimed - Respondents department's appeal to HC was rejected on ground that it was preferred after period of limitation and that there was no provision in the Act enabling Court to condone the delay - Respondent have to refund sums claimed by petitioner since it had succeeded before Tribunal - Respondent pointed out that Tribunal's ruling in Behl Construction was overturned by HC in its appeal where it was held that provision requiring decision within eight months was not mandatory but only directory - Petitioner's grievance before HC was that sum of Rs.2,55,11,598/- have to be paid to it by respondents Held, respondents appeal was at large and had to be decided both on question of limitation as well as merits - Given these set of circumstances, HC was of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in retaining amounts paid by respondents in HC - As on date, order of Tribunal had not been set aside - At the same time, setting-aside of respondents previous determination in Behl Constructions would mean that objection would have to be heard and adjudicated on merits - Consequently, it was hereby directed that amounts deposited in Court should be refunded to petitioner subject to its complying with directions - Order accordingly.