Highlights of Issue dated 24.2.2016 of Vol. 25 of "JKJAIN'S VAT REPORTER" from the House of J.K.Jain's (Since 2004)

VOL.25: PART-4 

Read Editorial Comments of CA OM Prakash Jain in 25 J.K.Jains Vat Reporter 103

High Court cases:

Raw MaterialManufactureDirect or indirect  use of any material required for the purpose of manufacture of end-product will fall in the terminology of Raw Material used in the process of Manufacture25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 97 Commercial Taxes Officer, A/E, Jhunjhunu v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.(Raj) 

Rejecting the returns filed by the assessee without corroborating explicit reasons/evidence, is bad at law25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 91 Bikaner Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v.  Assistant Commissioner (Raj) 

InterestFailure to furnish returnsIn such a case, the AA has to determine the tax payable and issue notice of demand to the assessee and interest is leviable only when this demand is not paid by the due date25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 77 Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. v. The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal (DEL)

[Also read Editorial Comments]

[Other Case Law on the Same Issue:  E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. ACCT (2005) 3 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 267 (SC)]

Burden of proofFor holding that the transactions are liable to tax, the Burden of proof is on the AA25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 91 Bikaner Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v.  Assistant Commissioner (Raj)

SaleTaxability of Packing material25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 95 C.T.O., A/E, Bhilwara v. Suzuki Textiles Ltd. (Raj)  

Fuel and Lubricant‘Diesel’ is fuel and lubricant and is covered by the definition of Raw material25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 97 Commercial Taxes Officer, A/E, Jhunjhunu v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.(Raj)

PenaltyPenalty is not leviable u/s 61, Raj VAT Act, 2003  for Commodity Classification Dispute25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 91 Assistant Commissioner v. P.N.Agarwal & Company (Raj)

Judicial precedents are to be followed by the Tax Board25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 94 N.M. Exports, Sriganganagar v. The Commercial Taxes Officer (Raj)

Rajasthan Tax Board cases:

Burden of proofClassification DisputeFor holding that the product classification as claimed by the assessee is not correct, the Burden of proof is on the AA25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 107 Assistant Commissioner v. Glazetek Elpanel (TBDB)  

“Water supplied in Camper” is exempt25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 103 Esale Enterprises v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (TBDB)

[Other Case Law on the Same Issue:  Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Ship Mineral Water (TBDB), appeal No.1816/2007/Jaipur decided on 11.2.2016]

[Also read Editorial Comments]

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

PLUS TWO CASES OF TAX BOARD TWO DETERMINATIONS UNDER S.36, RAJ. VAT ACT, ON CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS.

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