Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Offences and penalties

CST & VAT : Uttar Pradesh VAT - Where Tribunal had not considered whether goods in question was taxable and further, demand notices were served on assessee company instead of receiver appointed by High Court, issue of imposition of penalty was to be reconsidered
■■■
[2015] 54 taxmann.com 276 (Allahabad)
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anupam Sugar Industries
v.
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P.*
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
TRADE TAX REVISION NOS. 101 TO 103 OF 2014
NOVEMBER  14, 2014
Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Offences and penalties - Sales tax/VAT - Loan taken by assessee's molasses unit being declared NPA by bank, High Court appointed receiver and assessee's accounts were stopped - On other hand, penalty was imposed for failure to pay tax demand on production of molasses - Assessee's case was that molasses unit being taken over by receiver, proper notice was not served, that molasses itself would not be taxable, and that financial constraint was faced since bank stopped operation of account - Further, Tribunal had not considered whether goods in question were taxable - Whether, matter required readjudication - Held, yes [Paras 10 and 11] [In favour of assessee/Matter remanded]

Section 24 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rules 5A and 6B

CST & VAT: West Bengal VAT - Where assessee made an application for registration in Form 1 accompanied by documents on 12-2-2013 and Assessing Authority issued certificate of registration with its validity from 10-5-2013, Assessing Authority was directed to issue registration certificate with its validity from 14-3-2013
■■■
[2015] 54 taxmann.com 37 (WBTT)
WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
JCCT, Central Registration Unit
v.
Rasha India (P.) Ltd.*
PRANAB KUMAR DEB, CHAIRMAN
AND NIRMAL KANTI SARKAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER
CASE NO. RW-8 OF 2014†
OCTOBER  29, 2014
Section 24 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rules 5A and 6B of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Registration - Of dealer - Assessee made application for registration in Form 1 accompanied by documents referred to in rule 5A on 12-2-2013 - Assessing authority issued certificate of registration with its validity from 10-5-2013 - Tribunal by an order directed Assessing Authority to issue certificate of registration in favour of assessee with its validity from 14-3-2013 - Whether Tribunal was justified in its view - Held, yes [Para 3][In favour of assessee]

Section 43 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - Assessment

CST & VAT: Orissa VAT : A dealer is entitled to be supplied with materials intended to be used against him in assessment proceeding and his explanation with regard to those materials is bound to be considered by Assessing Officer in assessment order
■■■
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 251 (Orissa)
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Deo Ispat Alloys Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cuttack*
I. MAHANTY AND B.N. MAHAPATRA, JJ.
W.P. (C) NO. 6245 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER  26, 2014
Section 43 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - Assessment - Turnover escaping assessment - Period 1-4-2009 to 6-9-2012 - Whether a dealer is entitled to be supplied with materials intended to be used against him in assessment proceeding for rebuttal and his explanation with regard to those materials is bound to be considered by Assessing Officer in assessment order either accepting or rejecting same - Held, yes [Para 18] [In favour of assessee/Matter remanded]

Rate of penalty was reduced to 15 per cent

CST & VAT : Uttarakhand VAT : Where assessee had not deposited admitted tax along with returns and thereupon Tribunal imposed penalty at rate of 20 per cent, since it was stand of assessee that first time it was levied with penalty, rate of penalty was reduced to 15 per cent
■■■
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 292 (Uttarakhand)
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Texplas (India) (P.) Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Dehradun*
K.M. JOSEPH, CJ.
AND V.K. BIST, J.
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION NOS. 8, 9, 21 AND 22 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER  16, 2014
Section 58 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Penalty - For failure to deposit tax due along with return - Assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 - For two quarters, assessee filed returns both under VAT Act and Central Act on time - It had not deposited admitted tax along with returns - For failure to deposit admitted tax in time, Tribunal imposed penalty upon assessee under section 58(1)(vii)(a) at rate of 20 per cent - Assessee submitted that first time it was levied with penalty - Whether in peculiar facts of case rate of penalty required to be reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent - Held, yes [Para 15] [Partly in favour of assessee]

Assessing Authority relying on section 22(4) of Kerala General Sales Tax Act initiated recovery proceeding against secretary for recovery of arrears of sales tax dues of society

CST & VAT: Kerala VAT : Where secretary of a society had resigned from society on 18-11-1998 and long thereafter Assessing Authority relying on section 22(4) of Kerala General Sales Tax Act initiated recovery proceeding against secretary for recovery of arrears of sales tax dues of society for assessment years 1981-82 to 1991-92, since section 22(4) was incorporated in statute only w.e.f. 1-4-1999, recovery proceedings against secretary were not permissible
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 389 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sales Tax Officer
v.
K.J. Augustine*
ANTONY DOMINIC AND ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
W.A. NO. 2085 OF 2012
W.P. (C) NO. 603 OF 2009
FEBRUARY  28, 2014
Section 22 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Recovery of tax - Liability of dealer to pay tax collected by him - Assessment years 1981-82 to 1991-92 - One 'B' was secretary of a Co-operative society - He resigned from service of society on 18-11-1998 - Long thereafter Assessing Authority relying on section 22(4) initiated recovery proceedings against 'B' for recovery of arrears of sales tax dues of society for assessment years 1981-82 to 1991-92 - Section 22(4) was incorporated in statute only with effect from 1-4-1999, which was long after relevant assessment years and even after resignation of 'B' from service of society - Whether in given situation recovery proceedings initiated against 'B' were not permissible - Held, yes [Para 4][In favour of assessee]
S. Sudheesh Kumar, Senior Government Pleader for the Appellant. Jairam V. Menon and V.P. Sukumar for the Respondent.

Claim of exemption for export sales on ground of non production of 'C' forms and 'H' forms

CST & VAT : Where Assessing Officer had disallowed assessee's claim of exemption for export sales on ground of non production of 'C' forms and 'H' forms, matter was remanded for passing fresh order after considering declaration forms being produced by assessee
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 152 (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G. Bala Mohanan Pillai
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kuzhithurai*
R. SUBBIAH, J.
W.P. (MD) NO. 10530 OF 2014
JULY  1, 2014
Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sale - In course of export - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer issued on assessee a pre assessment notice stating that in return filed he had wrongly reported export sales under section 5(3) and proposed to disallow claim of exemption for export sales on ground of non filing of 'C' forms and 'H' forms - Assessee approached Assessing Officer for grant of time to submit declaration forms and produced all available 'C' forms and 'H' forms before Assessing Officer on 18-3-2014 - He also requested for a month's time to produce balance declarations - In mean while, Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 1-4-2014 on assessee and disallowed claim of exemption for export sales - Whether in peculiar facts of case matter required to be remanded back to Assessing Officer for passing fresh order after considering all declaration forms being produced by assessee - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars & Notifications : Circular dated 29-6-1999, Circular dated 28-2-2001

There was contravention of provisions of section 53(2)(b)

CST & VAT: Where a transporter was transporting goods from Surat to Hubli and instead of unloading goods at Hubli, it carried vehicle beyond Hubli, there was contravention of provisions of section 53(2)(b)
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 242 (Karnataka)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
State of Karnataka
v.
RCI Logistics (P.) Ltd.*
N. KUMAR AND B. MANOHAR, JJ.
SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2012
JULY  3, 2014
Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rule 157 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Penalty - For contravention of provisions of section 53 - Assessee, a transporter, was transporting goods from Surat to Hubli - Instead of unloading goods at Hubli, driver carried vehicle beyond Hubli and parked same on Kolar road at Siddlaghatta, which was 50 Kms. away from border of Tamil Nadu - On interception of above vehicle, driver produced before Assessing Authority all documents to show that goods were transported from Surat to Hubli - He did not possess any document to show transportation of goods from Hubli to Siddlaghatta - He also stated that he was directed to deliver goods at Trichy in Tamil Nadu - Whether there was contravention of provisions of section 53(2)(b) by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, levy of penalty upon it under section 53(12) was justified - Held, yes [Para 15][In favour of revenue]

Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority passed orders on assessee without giving opportunity

CST & VAT : Where assessee's counsel could not attend at time of hearing because of his personal reason and thereupon Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority passed orders on assessee without giving opportunity, matter was sent back to make fresh assessment after affording opportunity to assessee
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 505 (WBTT)
WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
Sovan Das
v.
Sales Tax Officer, Behala Charges*
PRANAB KUMAR DEB, CHAIRMAN
AND NIRMAL KANTI SARKAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER
CASE NO. RN-320 OF 2011
JANUARY  21, 2013
Section 46 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Assessment - Opportunity of hearing - Assessing Authority passed an ex parte assessment order on assessee - Appellate Authority also passed order without giving a semblance of opportunity to assessee to vindicate his stand - Assessee's counsel could not attend at time of hearing because of his personal reason - Whether matter required to be remitted back to Assessing Authority to make fresh assessment after affording opportunity to assessee to vindicate his stand - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee/Matter remanded]

High Court reduced pre-deposit as it was causing financial hardship to assessee

CST & VAT: High Court reduced pre-deposit as it was causing financial hardship to assessee
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 590 (Gujarat)
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Laxmi Metal Works
v.
State of Gujarat*
M.R. SHAH AND K.J. THAKER, JJ.
TAX APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2014
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 208 OF 2014†
AUGUST  14, 2014
Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeals to (Pre-deposit) - Assessing Officer confirmed total demand of Rs. 20.15 lakh as tax, Rs. 14.51 lakh as interest and Rs. 30.22 lakh as penalty - Commissioner dismissed appeal for failure to pre-deposit 20 per cent of total demand of Rs. 64.87 lakh i.e., Rs. 12.97 lakh - Tribunal instructed to pre-deposit 60 per cent of tax demand of Rs. 20.15 lakh, i.e., 12.09 lakh - Assessee requested to reduce amount of pre-deposit pleading financial hardship - Whether assessee should be allowed to pre-deposit Rs. 7.5 lakh and Commissioner should decide appeal on merit - Held, yes [Paras 7 & 8][In favour of assessee]

Where order imposing penalty was remanded, original order did subsist; mere pendency of remand case would not entitle department to retain amount deposited as penalty

CST & VAT : Where order imposing penalty was remanded, original order did subsist; mere pendency of remand case would not entitle department to retain amount deposited as penalty
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 175 (Punjab & Haryana)
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Surya Synthetics
v.
State of Punjab*
RAJIVE BHALLA AND DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, JJ.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23146 OF 2013
OCTOBER  25, 2013
Section 12, read with section 14B, of the General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - Refund - Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 3,52,000 on petitioner - Petitioner filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner after depositing Rs. 88,000 towards penalty - Deputy Commissioner found that order of Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty was non-speaking and ex-parte and therefore, he remanded case - Whether in absence of mention of words by Deputy Commissioner that order of Assistant Commissioner had been set aside or that appeal was allowed, would not raise an inference that original order of Assistant Commissioner still subsisted - Held, yes - Whether since impugned order of Deputy Commissioner left no ambiguity that orders of Assistant Commissioner levying penalty was set aside and matter was remanded to pass fresh orders, pendency of remanded case, did not entitle department to retain amount of penalty deposited by petitioner - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]

Transfer of land was not with intention to defraud revenue

CST & VAT : Where Assessing Officer in order to recover arrears of tax due from one 'B' had attached his land and thereafter 'B' had sold said land to assessee, since 'B' had not discharged initial onus showing that transfer of land was not with intention to defraud revenue, action of Assessing Officer putting charged land to sale could not be faulted

■■■

[2014] 50 taxmann.com 197 (Andhra Pradesh)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Showtech Stone International (P.) Ltd.

v.

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Saroornagar Circle, Hyderabad*

RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 13475 OF 2010

AUGUST  28, 2014 

Section 27, read with section 26, of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and sections 53 and 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Recovery of tax - Attachment of property - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 - Assessing Officer finalised assessments of one 'B' and raised tax demand upon him - He in order to recover arrears of tax due from 'B' had attached his land - Thereafter 'B' had sold said land to assessee by registered sale deed dated 17-3-2007 - Later Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice proposing to recover arrears of tax due from 'B' putting above land to sale - 'B' had not discharged initial onus placed on him under section 27(1) showing that transfer of land was not with intention to defraud revenue - Whether action of Assessing Officer putting charged land to sale could not be faulted - Held, yes [Para 30] [Partly in favour of assessee]

Assessing Authority directed assessee to pay arrears of tax due

CST & VAT: Where against order of assessment, assessee filed revision petition alongwith stay petition and Revisional Authority did not proceed with matter and in mean time Assessing Authority directed assessee to pay arrears of tax due, recovery proceeding were kept in abeyance and Revisional Authority was directed to dispose of stay petition on merits
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 409 (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
New Holland Fiat (India) (P.) Ltd.
v.
Assistant Commissioner (CT)*
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
W.P. (MD) NO. 14549 OF 2014
M.P. (MD) NOS. 1 & 2 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER  3, 2014
Section 45, read with section 54, of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Recovery of tax - Stay of recovery - Against order of assessment, assessee filed revision petition alongwith stay petition - Joint Commissioner did not proceed with matter, since assessment file had not been forwarded by Assessing Authority - In mean time, Assessing Authority directed assessee to pay arrears of tax due - Whether in peculiar facts of case recovery proceedings deserved to be kept in abeyance for a certain period - Held, yes - Whether Joint Commissioner was to be directed to dispose of stay petition on merits - Held, yes [Para 8][In favour of assessee]