|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh vs Associated Distributors Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 May 2008]
UP Sales Tax Act - Rate of tax applicable on the sales of Bubble-gum - Held, High Court came to the specific finding that the Bubble-gum cannot be treated as a sweetmeat but it is certainly an item of confectionery but gave no reasons for its finding - Bubble-gum can not be considered as mithai in the State of Uttar Pradesh is taxable as an unclassified good - Appeals allowed.
|
Punjab Aromatics vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Apr 2008]
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Constitution o India, art. 286(1)(a) - Whether heating red oil to specified degree and then filtering it to remove impurities amounts to consumption/use of red oil in the manufacture of sandalwood oil attracts levy under s. 5A of KGSTA, 1963? - Held, by adding of impurities sandalwood oil becomes red oil, therefore, there was no consumption of red oil in the manufacture of sandalwood oil - Word "consumption" in the Explanation to art. 286 of the Constitution as it stood before the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956 has to be read in a manner different from the act of consumption in the generally understood sense - Appeal allowed.
|
(1) Hawkins Cookers Limited; (2) Talent Marketing Agencies vs (1) State of Kerala; (2) Additional Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Apr 2008]
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Whether satilon brand cookware sold by appellants was "aluminium household utensil made of aluminum" and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or whether the said product fell under Entry 104 which pertains to "pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not coming under any other entry? - Held, "satelon coated aluminium products" are not identical with "aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and aluminium alloys" - Coating of satilon makes all the difference to the product - Satilon coated cookware cannot be treated as ordinary aluminium household utensils - Price of the satilon coated cookware is much more than the aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and its alloys - Appeals dismissed.
|
(1) Sales Tax Practitioners' Association of Maharashtra and Tushar P. Joshi; (2) Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa; (3) Bombay Small Scale Industries Association and Raksh Pal Abrol, President, The Bombay Small Scale Industries Association; (4) Maharashtra State Tax Practitioner Associations Federation, A Society Registered Under The Provisions of The Indian Societies Act Through Its President, Shri. Tukaram Baburao Shinde vs (1) State of Maharashtra Through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance; (2) State of Maharashtra Through The Department of Finance and The Commissioner of Sales Tax
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : F. I. REBELLO1. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the main challenge in all the petitions is to the constitutional validity of Section 61(1) and the explanation thereto, of the
|
International Metro Civil Contractors, New Delhi vs (1) Commissioner of Sales Tax/Vat, Delhi; (2) Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax/Vat Special Zone, New Delhi
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 14 Mar 2008]
Petition to challenge orders by which jurisdiction in respect of Petitioner for assessment year 2000-2001 onwards under Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was transferred to Deputy Commissioner (Special Zone), by which revisionary powers u/s. 46 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, which was repealed on 31st March, 2005, were delegated to Deputy Commissioner (Special Zone) and notice by which Deputy Commissioner (Special Zone) sought to exercise his (delegated) revisionary jurisdiction to call for and examine record/proceedings pertaining to assessment of Petitioner under Works Contract Act and DST Act - Whether any proceedings for revising assessment order were at all initiated by Revenue before 31st March, 2005 when DST Act and Works Contract Act were repealed? - Whether proceedings initiated by Revenue were saved by DVAT Act on repeal of DST Act and Works Contract Act on 31st March, 2005? - What is the effect of the omission, in DVAT Act, of power to revise assessment that was available to Commissioner u/s. 16 of Works Contract Act r/w s. 46 of DST Act? - Held, process of revisionary proceeding, not having been initiated by Revenue, dies natural death on repeal of DST Act and Works Contract Act, unless right of Revenue is otherwise saved by DVAT Act - By virtue of s. 106(2) of DVAT Act since previous operation of DST Act and Works Contract Act was saved, assessment order being transaction past and closed under those statutes, was also saved; power of revision being only enabling power and not substantive right, it is not saved by s. 106(2) of DVAT Act, which only saves a 'right' or an 'entitlement', both being synonymous - Fresh power of revision was conferred on Commissioner by amendment brought about to DVAT Act on 16th November, 2005 when s. 74A was inserted in that Act but this did not resuscitate or resurrect the long-dead revisionary power conferred on Commissioner u/s. 46 of DST Act; it had no retrospective effect - Revisionary power conferred on Commissioner by s. 74A of the DVAT Act with effect from 16th November, 2005 has not yet been delegated to anybody, thus, it is quite obvious that the order dated 16th January, 2006 transferring jurisdiction over Petitioner to Special Zone cannot have any relation to the power to exercise revisionary jurisdiction - Petition allowed.
|
Gharda Chemicals Limited vs State of Maharashtra and Others
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 14 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE R. S. MOHITE1. Rule, By consent of the parties rule made returnable forthwith and parties are heard.2. This writ petition filed by M/s.Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
|
State of Punjab and Others vs Sankeshwar Hosiery Industry
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE S. H. KAPADIALeave granted.In view of our decision in the case of State of Punjab & Others etc. etc. v. M/s. Perfect Synthetics etc. etc. ' Civil Appeal No.1072 of 2008, the civil appeal is dismissed
|
State of Haryana vs Samtel India Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Mar 2008]
Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 - Whether respondent was entitled to addition of Colour Monitors in eligibility certificate dated 23.2.1995 entitling it to sales tax exemption under r. 28A for the manufacture of monochrome monitors and black and white TV sets? - Held, High Court had erred in relying upon the fact that modified eligibility certificate stood granted as it was granted pursuant to the impugned judgment of the Tribunal - No reason has been given by High Court as to what weightage should be given to the words used in the above rule, particularly, the expression "for manufacture of the same product" - High Court has not discussed the scope of sub-rule (4)(a) which provides for different scales of tax benefit and different duration of exemption period - Appeals allowed.
|
Bharjatiya Steel Industries vs Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Mar 2008]
U.P. Trade Tax Act, s. 4-B(2) - Penalty of Rs.85, 619/- on the appellant - Held, ordinarily a dealer must abide by the undertaking given by it - If it is not in a position to comply with the requirements contained in the statute, it is expected that it would inform thereabout to the assessing authority - It did not disclose as to when it sold out the goods. What was its consumption during said assessment year or the next assessment year had not been disclosed - As a finding of fact has been arrived at that the dealer had not furnished any proof in regard to its inability to use it for manufacturing purposes - It was obligatory on the part of the appellant as it has special knowledge in regard thereto to show as to why the entire quantity of goods could not be utilized - Appeal dismissed.
|
State of West Bengal vs Pranab Kumar Saha
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Mar 2008]
Whether the Police officials appointed in the Bureau of Investigation shall continue to retain their power and authority under Cr.PC.?; whether after lodgment of FIR alleging commission of offences under West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and IPC?; whether Police officials attached to the Bureau of Investigation, lose their power and authority to carry out investigation as regards alleged criminal offences; Whether the words 'Proceedings triable' contained in s. 6(2) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 covers proceedings commencing from the beginning of the trial and not proceedings after lodgment of FIR? - Held, while setting out the principles, the Tribunal has correctly stated that it does not have jurisdiction, power and authority over any investigation, enquiry or proceedings conducted under Criminal Proceedings Code in respect of IPC alleged offences - Appeal partly allowed.
|
Moriroku Ut India Private Limited vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Mar 2008]
U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Whether amortisation cost of toolings was includible in the sale price of auto components as in the case of excise duty under Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held, excise duty is a levy on a taxable event of "manufacture" and it is calculated on the "value" of manufactured goods - It is not concerned with ownership or sale - Liability under the excise law is event-based and irrespective of whether the goods are sold or captively consumed - Under the excise law, the liability is there even when the manufacturer is not the owner of raw material or finished goods - High Court had erred in holding that the amortization cost calculated in terms of r. of the Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is includible in the sale price of auto components sold by the appellant - Appeal allowed.
|
State of Uttaranchal and Another vs Kailash Motors and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Feb 2008]
U.P. General Sales Tax Act - Whether the right to recover taxes under U.P. General Sales Tax Act prior to the State Reorganization Act 2000 lay with State of U.P. or with State of Uttaranchal? - Held, High Court has not decided the issue - Remitted the matter to the Uttaranchal High Court for fresh consideration - Appeal allowed.
|
Messrs Goa Carbon Limited vs Commissioner of Trade Tax
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Feb 2008]
U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, s. 3F - Tribunal held that transaction of transfer of the right to use was a local sale under s. 3F - Appeal against - Held, in cases falling under s.3F, subject-matter of taxation is transfer of right to use goods and, therefore, it is unnecessary to deal with the question of delivery of possession which is related to situs - Subject- matter of taxation is transfer of right to use and, therefore, place where such right is transferred assumes importance - Entire arrangement was got up in order to project the impugned transaction as an outside sale so that the said transaction does not come within the ambit of s. 3F - Appeal dismissed.
|
Kalidas Sheet Metal Industries Private Limited vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Feb 2008]
Kerala General Sales-Tax Act, 1963 - Assessing Authority rejected the claim of the appellant that copper sheets and brass sheets are unclassified items taxable at the rate of 5% - Appeal against - Whether the Copper Sheets and Brass Sheets would fall under the Entry 116A and 116D? - Held, clarification made by Government would go to show that Copper and Brass Sheets, circles, ingots etc. are not Copper or Brass products - If these items are not Copper or Brass products the same will have to be regarded as Copper and Brass metals falling within the ambit of Entry No. 116A and 116D - Authorities below as well as the High Court were justified in concluding that Copper Sheets and Brass Sheets in which the appellant deals would fall within the scope of Entries No. 116A and 116D liable to be taxed at the rate of 8% of the turnover - Appeals dismissed.
|
Kalidas Sheet Metal Industries Private Limited vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : J. M. PANCHAL1. These appeals are directed against judgments rendered by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Tax Revision Case Nos. 467 of 2000 and 10 of 2001 by which the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner
|
Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh vs J. U. Pesticides and Chemical Private Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated October 10, 2006 passed by a learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court in Trade Tax Revision No. 694 of
|
National Aluminium Company Limited vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Feb 2008]
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Tribunal that sales took place within State of Orissa and not within State of Andhra Pradesh and as such it should be treated as intra-state sale within the State of Orissa and not intra- state sale within Andhra Pradesh - Appeal against - Held, scope of consideration before the Tribunal was very limited as to whether any sale took place within the State of Andhra Pradesh - Having decided that issue, Tribunal was not required to go into any other question particularly when the relevant factors were not before it - There was no material before the Tribunal to come to a definite finding, as done, that the transaction should be treated as intra state sale within the State of Orissa - Appeal partly allowed.
|
State of Punjab and Others vs Shital Fibres Limited and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Feb 2008]
Punjab Valuation Added Tax Act 2005 - show cause notice issued weather blankets came under the description of "textile fabrics" which were exempted goods - High Court quashed the show cause notice - Appeal against - Held, dispute warrants adjudication by the Assessing Officer and therefore the High Court should not have quashed the show cause notice at the threshold - Appeal allowed.
|
M. Mohammed Yousef vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Feb 2008]
Sales Tax - Held, in view of the fact that the judgment in Sales Tax Revision No.9 of 2006 relying upon which the High Court dismissed the Sales Tax Revision out of which the present appeals arise, has been set aside by this Court in the case of Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), set aside the impugned orders of the High Court - Appeals allowed.
|
Messrs Padinjarekara Agencies Limited vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Feb 2008]
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Production of sale of centrifuged latex - Benefit of exemption provided in the Government Notification SRO No. 1003/91 which was subsequently replaced by Government Notification SRO No. 1727/93 - Conditions for availing exemptions were that rubber should be used for manufacture of "goods" and that tax was leviable on the products manufactured by such rubber - High Court, held that since raw-rubber and centrifuged latex are one and the same commodity under Entry 110 (preceded by Entry 161) the assessee was not entitled to claim concessional rate of duty - Appeal against - Held, assessee was not bound by the orders/directions issued by the Commissioner to the AO, therefore, on the scope and effect of each of the above exemption Notifications, the matter needs to be remitted to the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law - If the assessee satisfies the terms and conditions mentioned in the Exemption Notification, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit thereunder notwithstanding the circular issued by the Board/Commissioner - Remitted the matters to AO - Appeals allowed.
|
State of Kerala and Others vs Messrs Kurian Abraham Private Limited and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Feb 2008]
Sales Tax Act, 1963; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Reopening of assessments - Held, completed assessments were sought to be reopened by the AO on the ground that the circular No. 16/98 was not binding - If the State Government was of the view that such circulars are illegal or that they are ultra vires s. 3(1A), which it is not, it was open to the State to nullify/withdraw the said circular under s. 60 of the 1963 Act - Appeals dismissed.
|
Messrs Sinetech vs Commercial Tax Officer, Korattur Assessment Circle, Korattur, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 06 Feb 2008]
Sales Tax - Sections 7-C, 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Revised assessment - Petitioner had exercised the option of paying tax at compounding rate under s. 7-C by filing the return in Form A-1 - Appellant submitted that the transactions of the petitioner will not come under the category of "works contract" thereby the respondent to assume jurisdiction to revise the assessment and levy tax on the transaction as ordinary sale by invoking the provisions of s. 16 does not arise - Whether the respondent had power under s. 16 of the TNGST Act to reopen the assessment - Held, the question of revising the compounding order does not arise especially when a dealer is exercising option in payment of rates in compound rate and the petitioner was also made to pay tax at 4% on the entire contract value - Section 16 is not intended to withdraw the option exercised by the petitioner dealer - Impugned order set aside.
|
Shiv Shakti Exporters vs State of Punjab and Another
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 01 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : RAKESH KUMAR GARG1. The assessee has filed the present appeal under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 04175.xml(for brevity, "the Punjab VAT Act, 2005") challenging the order dated October 16, 2007
|
Muhuntha Paper Boards, Tiruchengode, Represented By S.Jagadeesh-Partner, Namakkal District vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode Town Assessment Circle, Tiruchengode, Namakkal (District)
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 31 Jan 2008]
Sales Tax - TNGST Act 1959 - Refund Voucher - Issuance of - Held, petitioner is directed to make a representation to the respondent for grant of refund voucher subject to the satisfaction of such conditions imposed in G.O.198 dated 19.12.2007 - Writ petitions disposed of.
|
Mappillai Vinayakar Cine Complex, Represented By Partner: K.Vetrivel Kannan, Madurai vs Commercial Tax Officer, West Veli Street Circle, Madurai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jan 2008]
Sales Tax - Rule 40, Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 - Demand - Arrears - Petitioner firm, a partnership firm, is also an assessee on the file of the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act - Demand notice was issued prior to the attachment of a property for arrears of Sales Tax - Petitioners filed a Writ petition - While the Writ petition was pending, the respondent attached the petitioner's property for the sales tax arrears of other two private ltd., companies and another partnership firm - Petitioner submitted that simply because some of the partners in the petitioner's firm are Directors of limited companies, the property belonging to the petitioner, which is a partnership firm cannot be attached for the arrears of the limited companies since the limited companies and the petitioner herein are two different legal entities - Respondent submitted that the petitioner firm has been brought into existence with an intention to defraud the Government revenue and that as per r. 40, TNGST Rules, 1959, the properties belonging to the common partners are liable to be proceed against - Held, company being a legal entity by itself can be sue and can be sued as a legal entity and any dues from the company has to be recovered only from that company and not from its Directors - While the revenue is entitled to proceed against the shares of the common partners in the petitioner partnership firm towards the sales tax arrears of the assessee firm the revenue cannot attach the shares of the remaining partners who are not partners of the assessee firm - Impugned order set aside.
|
|