Posts
"JKJAIN'S GST & VAT REPORTER"
(Since 2004)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.No other magazine
contain the following:
--Free consultation
--Free mailing facility of e-mailing judgments/notfns
--Para Nos. of the judgment
in the Crisp Head Notes to save time of
readers.
--Judgments reported in the case law are given in the
beginning with para Nos.
--Editorial Comments
on judgments and opinion of the
Editors
2). Indexing of
notfns
i) Index to
notfns--Date wise & Govt. No.wise
ii) Subjectwise
3) In Vol.25
& 26, Reported 167 Judgments including; 37 Judgments of Supreme Court,
45 Judgments of Rajasthan High Court,
8 notable Judgments of Other High Courts &
13 Departmental Determinations with Full text & Concise
Head notes.
a) Editorial comments are given in 25 (Twenty Five) cases.
b) In the following cases, our opinion given earlier, were affirmed by the recent judgments as under;
i) Classification of Battery:–We gave our opinion, based on reasonings that the judgment of the Hon’ble Tax board dated 28.3.2012 was not correct, while reporting the Judgment of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Merathan India Ltd. (TBDB) in (2012) 17 J.K.Jain’s Vat Reporter 213. Now per judgment dated 2.12.2016 of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Marathon India Ltd., Jaipur v. CTO, Circle J, Jaipur (2016) 26 J.K.Jain’s Vat Reporter 289, the judgment of the Hon’ble Tax board dated 28.3.2012 has been reversed, maintaining our view point given four years back.
ii) Exim scrips/REP licenses are
Goods:–Our
opinion given in the case of
National Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. State of A.P. (2008) 9 Vat Reporter 108 that Exim
Scrips/REP licences, are ‘goods’ within the frame work of definition u/s 2(15),
Raj. VAT Act, 2003, has now been
endorsed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in judgment dated 8.11.2016 in
Commercial Tax Officer & Ors v. State Bank of India & Anr. (2016) 26
J.K.Jain’s Vat Reporter 240.
5. VOL.26: Some important cases:
5.1) Supreme Court cases:
PART-10 DATED 24.11.2016:
Entry TaxConstitutionally valid(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 259 Jindal Stainless Ltd.& Anr. v. State of Haryana
PART-7 DATED 9.10.2016:
Interpretation of circular,
prejudicial to the interest of the assessee is bad at law(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
178 J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v.
Commercial Tax Officer, Pali (SC)
PART-4 DATED 24.8.2016:
Works contractIron and steel reinforcements of cement concrete used in
Works contract of buildings does not lose their identity as Iron and
steel, which cannot be taxed again due to restrictions under Article
286. However, Iron and steel used in manufacture of
other goods which in turn used in execution of works contracts are not
exempt from tax(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
91 B. Narasamma v. Deputy Commissioner(SC).
PART-5 DATED 9.9.2016:
Works contract executed through
sub-contractorsOnly one Taxable event from sub-contractor to the
contractee. Treating two taxable events of sale would be violative of
Art.366(29A)(b)(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
119 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Addl. Dy.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SC).
PART-3 DATED 9.8.2016:
Burden of ProofClassification of GoodsThe burden of proof regarding classification of goods
squarely falls upon the Revenue(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
57 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Marico
Industries Ltd.(SC).
PART-6 DATED 24.9.2016:
Movement of goods with incomplete
supportive prescribed formsPenalty u/s 78(5) leviable(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
146 Commercial Taxes Officer v. Agrawal Plywood, Bikaner (SC).
Section 18(3A)Reversal of ITC due to selling price lesser than purchase Price is
valid(2016)
26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 147 Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner &
Anr.(SC).
PART-8 DATED 24.10.2016:
Exemption notfnConditional ExemptionIn case of non fulfillment of stipulations/conditions of exemption
notfn, the exemption stands withdrawn & the assessee is liable tax/duty
(para 17)(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 197 Commissioner
of Central Excise v. Gujarat
Ambuja Exports (SC)
Manufacture of Edible OilEmergence of By-product (non edible oil)In the process of manufacture of
edible oil, By-product (non edible oil) was
also emerged, which can
not be termed to be the ‘manufacture of non edible oil’, since it is not
a main manufacturing activity (para 19)(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
197 Commissioner
of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Gujarat Ambuja Exports (SC)
ManufacturingBlending and packing tea, does not
amount to ‘manufacturing’ of tea (para 22)(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
207 Dugar Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd v. State of Assam & Ors. (SC)
5.2 High Court cases:
PART-8 DATED 24.10.2016:
Penalty u/s 76(6), Raj Vat Act, 2003Movement of goods
with incomplete/ unpunched declaration form Vat
47Material particularsPenalty leviable (2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
218, 223, 210; ACTO, Flying Squad-VI, Jaipur v. Anil Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Raj),
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd., Beawar v. The ACTO Flying Squad, Sirohi, Agrotech
Foods Limited v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Raj).
SaleReplacement of defective spare parts during warranty
period or issuing credit notes by
the manufacturer to the assessee in lieu of defective spare parts replaced by
the assessee, free of cost under warranty agreement between the manufacturer
and the customerSince SLP is pending before the Apex Court on the same issue in the
case C.T.O. (AE), Jodhpur v. Marudhara Motors (2009) 12 Vat Reporter 17 (Raj), to avoid
multiplication of litigation, all the petitions were disposed off with a rider
that the outcome of these petitions would be
governed finally by the outcome of the SLP pending before the Apex Court(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 228 Commercial Taxes Officer &
Ors. v. Gupta Motors & Ors. (Raj)
PART-1 DATED 9.7.2016:
Declaration Form ‘C’Inter-State Sale‘C’ Forms obtained from purchaser of goods were found to be
not genuineBenefit
of concessional rate of tax is available to the seller(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S
Vat Reporter 9 Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. C.T.O. A/E, Jodhpur
Legislative competence of StateInter-State salesSale of crude oil by the petitioner from the Barmer Oil Fileds to MRPL
etc., at the delivery points situated in Gujarat
and Karnataka, identified by the Central Govt., is an inter-State sale. The
State has no jurisdiction to levy tax under the provisions of the Raj.VAT Act,
2003 on such Inter-State sales(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
29 Cairn India Limited v. The State of Rajasthan
PART-4 DATED 24.8.2016:
Recovery of taxCoercive measures were taken for Attachment of Bank accounts by sending
attachment notices to the bank simultaneously along with assessment orders.
Powers exercised in an unreasonable manner were held to be invalid(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 100 Automark Industries (I) Ltd v.
State of Gujarat and Ors.(Guj).
PART-7 DATED 9.10.2016:
SaleRent of telephone sets/apparatus is a saleTransfer of right to
use the telephone sets/apparatus by the consumer against the rent is a sale(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 190 Union of India and another v.
State of Punjab and another (P & H).
Telecommunication
servicesGoods do not include radio frequencies or
electromagnetic waves for the purpose
of Article 366(29A)(d)(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
190 Union of India v. State
of Punjab (P & H).
ITC shall not be disallowed for want of Cross
verification from the Deptt’s. website(2016) 26
J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter 194 Computer
Consultants v. Assistant Commissioner (Mad).
PART-2 DATED 24.7.2016:
Works ContractPure labour contracts can not be brought into the purview of
levying tax in case a Dealer opting for composition. Levying tax on such
dealers, on Pure labour contracts will defeat the object and
purpose of the Act(2016) 26 J.K.JAIN’S Vat Reporter
43 HS Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Trade & Taxes (DEL)
6. VOL.25: Some important cases:
6.1) Supreme Court cases:
PART-1 DATED 9.1.2016:
Penalty
for failure to furnish information, return, etc.Default Provisions for imposing the penalty will be as per Provisions prevalent on date of default. The case of Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi
Annual ReturnFailure to Furnish by the
prescribed dateA default of non filing of return
occurs on the expiry of time limit fixed for its filing(2016) 25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 7 State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi
(SC).
6.2)High Court cases:
PART-2 DATED 24.1.2016:
ReturnRelief/benefits
not claimed in the ReturnNo relief/ benefits can be given without
filing a revised Return(2016) 25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER
27 Nandi Constructions v. The State of Karnataka
PART-4 DATED 24.2.2016:
InterestFailure to furnish returnsIn 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(2016) 25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 77 Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. v. The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal (DEL
PART-5 DATED 9.3.2016:
AssessmentScope of powers of Commissioner for extending limitation period for
completing the assessmentsPower to extend the time
limit is to be exercised before the normal period
of limitation for assessment expires(2016) 25 J.K.JAIN’S VAT REPORTER 111 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Shreyans Indus Ltd. Etc.(SC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE
ADDRESS: WWW.JKJAINS.BLOGSPOT.IN
No comments:
Post a Comment