|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Pentex Sales Corporation vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Delhi
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 06 May 2013]
|
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-I, Ajmer vs I. C. I. (India) Limited, Jaipur
[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]
|
Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-IV, Jaipur vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jaipur
[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]
Sales Tax - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, s. 78(5) - Incomplete declaration form - Imposition of penalty - Justifiability - Respondent/Oil Company was a Public Sector Undertaking and transmitting lubricant oil - On 9-2-1998 goods (Oil) was being transmitted from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bombay Head Office to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jaipur Branch Office in vehicle on branch transfer - However, said vehicle was checked by Authorities of petitioner department and on inspection, it was noticed that though all other documents were available with vehicle, declaration form No. ST-18A was found to be blank - Petitioner dept. issued show cause notice to respondent Company as to why penalty not to be imposed - Assessing Officer, imposed the penalty u/s. 78 (5) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,95,760/- by observing that carrying of incomplete declaration form No. ST-18A was not justified - Respondent filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner(DC), which was dismissed - Respondent Company filed appeal before tax Board, which was allowed appeal of respondent and deleted penalty imposed u/s. 78(5) of the Act, by setting aside the order passed by DC and Commercial Taxes Dept. - Aggrieved, petitioner dept. filed instant revision - Whether Tax Board was justified in passing the impugned order - Held, though none of authorities had considered Notification issued by Govt. but factum of stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer and SOS transfer was admitted by petitioner in instant revision petition - Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in remitting matter back to lower authorities, particularly, when matter was of 1998 and over 15 years old and it should not be in interest of justice to remit instant issue when issue was fully covered by Notification issued by Govt. - However, goods were transmitted to its branch at 'J' and transaction in question was prior to 20-3-2000 - Notification was squarely applicable to instant case, when there was no requirement of carrying such declaration form No. ST-18A in case of stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer and SOS transfer then whether it was blank or filled losses significance - Tax Board was justified in passing the impugned order - Revision dismissed.
|
U. K. Monu vs (1) Assistant Commissioner (KVAT), Kasargod; (2) Deputy Commercial of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Kozhikode
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 30 Apr 2013]
|
Ultra Tiles Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Chennai vs Assistant Commissioner (CT), Saligramam Assessment Circle, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 29 Apr 2013]
|
(1) Nazareth Foods (Private) Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Ms. Telma Isaac, Chennai; (2) Aachi Masala Foods (Private) Limited Represented by its Managing Director A. D. Padmasingh Issac, Chennai vs (1) Assistant Commissioner (CT) Aminjikkarai Assessment Circle, Chennai; (2) State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Fort St. George, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 29 Apr 2013]
|
Asian Paints Limited, Represented By Its Area Manager, R. Mohan Kumar vs (1) State of Kerala, Represented By Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram; (2) Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam; (3) Commercial Tax Inspector, Velanthavalam
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 23 Apr 2013]
|
Malaya Rub-Tech Industries, Represented By Its Managing Partner, Mathew T. Thomas vs (1) Intelligence Inspector, Idukki District; (2) Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kotayam; (3) Sugam Parivahan Limited, Kochi
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 23 Apr 2013]
|
Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Chavan Foods
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Apr 2013]
|
Hindustan COCA-COLA Beverages Private Limited vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2013]
Sales Tax - VAT - Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, ss. 4-A, 4A(3) - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, s. 8(5) - Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, s. 42 - Cold drinks units - Exemption from tax - Show cause notice - Maintainability - Respondent (State) issued notification u/s. 4-A of 1948 Act and u/s. 8(5) of 1956 Act, by which State Govt. granted exemption to industrial units making a fixed capital investment of Rs.50 Crores or more within a period of 5 years from the date of starting production from payment of tax for a period of 15 - Petitioner submitted a revised application for grant of Eligibility Certificate u/s. 4-A of 1948 Act declaring fixed capital investment - During pendency applications, State Govt. another 2 notifications withdrawn benefit of exemption granted to units manufacturing cold drinks - However, u/s. 42 of 2008 petitioner was required to deposit monthly trade tax along with return and then claim refund of said amount from respondents after obtaining a certificate of entitlement for unutilized amount from Commissioner - An application u/s. 41 of 2008 Act was filed before Commissioner, seeking certificate of entitlement but instead of issuing certificate of entitlement, Commissioner initiated impugned proceedings u/s. 4(A)(3) of 1948 Act, requiring petitioner to show cause as to why entire eligibility certificate granted earlier by Divisional Level Committee (DLC) to petitioner be not cancelled on 2 grounds; failure of DLC consider effect of notification denying benefit of exemption to cold drink units at the time it granted Eligibility Certificate to petitioner; order passed by Joint Commissioner, excluding amount of additional fixed capital investment from Eligibility Certificate granted to petitioner - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant petition - Whether instant petition filed by petitioner was maintainable - Held, it was crystal clear that writ jurisdiction u/art. 226 of Constitution should not be exercised in matters where petitions were filed against show cause notice as the person to whom the show cause notice was issued having ample opportunity to address his grievance by submitting his reply to show cause notice before authority concerned - In instant case, impugned show cause notice was issued to petitioner, requiring him to file his reply but instead of filing the reply to show cause notice, petitioner filed instant petition, which was not maintainable in eye of law insofar as petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file his reply to show cause notice and instant petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone - Perusal of record, inspite of fact that Commissioner (Assessment) was not competent authority to issue eligibility certificate u/s. 4-A of 1948 Act and said authority had no power to amend the eligibility certificate but even then, DLC had issued the eligibility certificate to petitioner's unit u/s. 4-A of 1948 Act in utter violation of notification dt.29-9-1999 - There was no dispute in the fact that on the date of grant of eligibility certificate by DLC, cold drinks were already placed in negative list and that very vital fact was not taken into consideration - Instant petition was filed by suppressing and concealing vital facts - In facts and circumstances of case, it was open to petitioner to file its reply before concerned authority raising all points - Petition dismissed.
|
Tvl. Sri Ambika Saw Mill and Traders, Pollachi vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Dy. Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Apr 2013]
|
(1) Vikas Poha Mill; (2) Maheshwari Poha Udyog; (3) Purushottamdas Chaturbhuj Lohiya; (4) Ashok Poha Mill vs Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax and others
[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT, 11 Apr 2013]
|
Preethy Prakash, Proprietrix, Parakkat Jewellers, Sreemulanagaram, Ernakulam vs (1) Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam; (2) Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry; (3) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 11 Apr 2013]
|
Sutherland Global Services Private Limited, Represented by its Senior Director-Finance, V. B. N. V. V. Prasad, Chennai vs Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Apr 2013]
|
Mumthas W/o Zubair vs (1) State of Kerala, Represented By the Secretrary; (2) District Collector, Kozhikode District; (3) Deputy Thahasildar (Rr), Kozhikode; (4) Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 08 Apr 2013]
|
Sreejith Kumar vs (1) Commercial Tax Officer, Adoor; (2) Intelligence Officer Squad No. I, Commercial Taxes Department, Pathanamthitta
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2013]
|
Vaas Automation Private Limited, Represented by R. Ganesan, Vice President-Operations and Authorised Signatory, Chennai vs (1) Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling, Chennai; (2) Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 02 Apr 2013]
|
Abdul Samad vs (1) Deputy Commissioner (Appelas), Commercial Taxes, Kollam; (2) Commercial Tax Officer, Kayamkulam; (3) Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kayamkulam
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 02 Apr 2013]
|
Kone Elevator India Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary, Chennai vs (1) Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi; (2) Central Board of Excise and Customs, Represented by its Chairman, Government of India, New Delhi; (3) Commissioner of Central Excise, MHU Complex, Chennai; (4) Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 02 Apr 2013]
|
Kerala Water Authority, Represented by its Executive Engineer Project Division, Kollam vs (1) Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, (Team Head), Fast Track Adalath Team, Pathanamthitta; (2) Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Pathanamthitta; (3) Commercial Tax Officer (WC and LT), Pathanamthitta
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 01 Apr 2013]
|
Bridgestone India Private Limited, Chennai vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram District
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 26 Mar 2013]
|
South India Freight Carriers, Chennai vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram District
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 26 Mar 2013]
|
G. Pushpalatha, Sabari Fashion Jewellery, Mavelikkara, Alappuzha District vs (1) Commercial Tax Officer, Mavelikkara; (2) Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam; (3) Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Taluk Office, Mavelikkara
[KERALA HIGH COURT, 26 Mar 2013]
|
Timex Art Decor Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra and others
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 25 Mar 2013]
VAT - Indirect Tax - Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Hawala dealers - Nonpayment of tax - Effect - Petitioner was a registered dealer and carries on business in plywood and decorative laminates - Sales Tax Department filed complaint with Economic Offences Wing of Crime Branch of CID alleging that petitioner/dealer and its Directors had obtained false bills from hawala dealers and claimed set-off resulting in a loss of revenue of Rs.77.28 lakhs for 2008-09 and Rs.44.86 lakhs for 2009-10 - Petitioner contended that an FIR was filed against petitioner on 22-10-2012 - Hence, it was alleged that name of petitioner was uploaded on the web-site on 12-7-2012 even prior to filing of FIR - Further, there was no basis to initiate proceedings u/s. 73 of the Act by publication on the web- site, when assessment was pending - Petitioner also contended that it was the duty of Revenue to pursue the hawala dealers who had collected tax - Held, it was not in dispute that at least seven of the 34 vendors whose invoices were relied upon by petitioner to claim input tax credit were bogus entities - As a matter of fact, there were no deliveries of goods or actual sales and bogus invoices were raised to get input tax credit - Publication by State on web-site falls within the enabling provisions of s. 73(1) of the Act - Publication on the web-site was a cautionary exercise and it did not cast a stigma - Further, petitioner could not possibly assert that its assessment in accordance with law should be deferred until an assessment was carried out in first instance against hawala dealers - Petitioner had no case whatsoever to make such an assertion - State was justified in taking necessary steps to complete the assessment of petitioner in accordance with law - HC was satisfied from disclosures which were made by State Govt. for pursuing remedies lawfully open even against the hawala dealers - A web of complex transactions were put into place to defraud the revenue and HC did not in the course of this judgement intend to circumscribe in any manner whatsoever the full range of powers vested in State Govt. through its Sales Tax Dept. for ensuring that due steps were taken to curb or as the case might be deal with hawala transactions which pose a serious threat to the revenue of State - Petition dismissed.
|
Sukhi Iron and Steel Company, Chennai vs Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Mar 2013]
|
|