INCOME TAX MATTERS ( A monthly journal on - Income tax and wealth tax- since 1999) - ( subscription for the year 2009 (TWO VOLUMES) is only Rs. 1300/-) - For subcription and to Know more click here

 

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - Nand Kishore & Company Versus The State of Punjab Date of decision: 13.8.2008

we have no hesitation in striking down notification No. S.O. 53/P.A. 8/2005/S.8/2007 dated 5.11.2007 adding entry 152 in Schedule `B' to the VAT Act, whereby tax is sought to be levied on sale of sugar imported from outside the State of Punjab. As a necessary consequence and to correct the mischief created with the issuance of notification No. S. O. 52/P.A. 8/2005/S.8/2007 dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure P.1), we further hold that the words “manufactured in the State of Punjab” used in entry 49 in Schedule `A' as substituted vide notification (Annexure P.1) to be violative of Articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India, as the same creates discrimination in the levy of tax on the sale of sugar brought from outside the State as against manufactured within the State of Punjab. - full text click here

 

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - Anmol Bakers Pvt. Ltd Versus State of Punjab - Date of decision 6. 12 .2007

 

Keeping in view the various aspects and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to exercise discretion by directing the respondent D E T C ( Appeals) Patiala Division, Patiala to accept the pre-deposit amount of Rs. One crore.(which is less than 25% of the total demand of Rs. 60760078/-). The aforementioned amount shall be considered sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 62(5) of the Act. However, it is made clear that if the amount is not deposited on or before 7.1.2008 then those orders would continue to operate - full text click here

 

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - Shiv Shakti Exporters Versus State of Punjab-Dated 1.2.2008

At about 8 A.M. in the morning on 14.4.2005, ETO intercepted two trucks on Mohali–Kharar road

The trucks did not stop at the Balongi ICC to give information. Neither of the drivers could produce bill/delivery challan and form No.VAT 12 pertaining to the goods.Proprietor of the consignee-firm appeared before the Detaining
Officer on the same day i.e. 14.4.2005 at about 10.35 AM at the ICC Balongi and produced the documents which includes STXXIV A from ICC Banur. In the report, the Detaining Officer has clearly mentioned that the owner was asked to explain the fact that how he could procure Form ST XXIV A from the ICC, Banur at about 9.30 a.m. whereas the checking officer had intercepted the vehicles at 8.05 AM at ICC, Balongi. The Detaining Officer has also mentioned in his report that the owner had admitted that the documents pertaining to both the vehicles were with him
and on learning about the detention of the vehicles he rushed at the ICC, Banur and got generated the information by producing those documents at the ICC, Banur. No account books or any other document or evidence was produced by the owner to prove the
genuineness of the transaction. Counsel for the appellant had no answer to the question to the effect that how the information was generated regarding the import of goods at ICC, Banur after 9.30 AM when the vehicles were detained at 8.30 AM at Balongi. Penalty under section 51 upheld. - full text click here

Shri Hari Sahib Steel Industries, Jassaran Road, Mandi Gobindgarh .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS

 

Applied for the registration on 6.8.2007 under PVAT & CST Act and completed all the formalities.The Depatment is not taking the decision on the application though it is obligatory on the Registering Authority to decide the application within a period of 30
days. Held, in view of the aforesaid facts, without issuing notice to the respondents, as it will un-necessary delay the matter, to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 6.8.2007, in accordance with law and take a decision by passing a speaking order within a period of one month. - full text click here

 

SUPREME COURT - S/s Kanpur Edibles Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. - October 24, 2008

 

REVISION AFTER REASSESSMENT -

Orders of assessment were passed for the two assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 on 27.2.1999 and 17.6.2000 respectively. On 21.8.2001 notice for re-assessment in terms of Section 21 of the Act was issued. The order was passed on 29.5.2003 holding that the notice issued under Section 21 was cancelled. On 31.1.2006 and 8.2.2006 notices under Section 10-B of the Act for revision of the order dated 29.5.2003 in respect of two assessment years were issued.Held that The crucial expressions in Section 10B(1) are "for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order" and "with respect thereof". In the present case what the revisional authority was empowered to test was the legality or propriety of the order cancelling the notices issued under Section 21(1) by order dated 29.5.2003. Such an exercise cannot encompass an order of assessment. It is of significance to note that the original orders have not been varied and could not have been varied after the period of limitation. What could not have been directly achieved has been attempted to be done in an indirect manner. - full text click here

 

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - R.S. Cotton Mills Vs. The State of Punjab - Decided on 24.9.2008.

            Non submission of ‘C’ forms alongwith annual return should be viewed with respect to judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prestolite of Indian Limited to the effect that ‘C’ and ‘D’ forms could be filed even after the filing of return or at appellate stage and same could be taken cognizance of. Regarding pre‑deposit of 25% of the demand, the court held that till the appeal is decided, the impugned demand will not be enforced. - FOR FULL TEXT CLICK HERE

 

 

SUPREME COURT- State of Haryana Versus M/s. A.S. Fuels Pvt. Ltd. - dated August 20, 2008 - Deferment and Exemption - full text click here

 

SUPREME COURT - Yasha Overseas Versus CST - dated 06/05/2008 -

DEPB has an intrinsic value that makes it a market commodity.Therefore, DEPB, like REP licence qualifies as `goods' within the meaning of the Sales Tax laws of Delhi, Kerala and Mumbai and its sale is exigible to tax.

- full text click here

 

HIGH COURT ( P & H) - Shiv Shanker Steel Industries. Vs. The State of Punjab - dated 25.08.2006

Keeping in view the contumacious conduct of the petitioner, we do not feel inclined to entertain the present petition and exercise extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition, we impose cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petition (published in 10 STM 33) - full text click here

SUPREME COURT - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. versus Union of India - dated 02/03/2006

If the sale of SIM card is merely incidental to the service being provided and only facilitates the indentification of the subscribers, their credit and other details, it would not be assessable to sales tax. (published in 9 STM 425) - full text see below

-------------------------------------------