Bullet in shows all news created by you at one place

News Filter

News Bulletinby Kanishka

Inter-State Goods Sale: No VAT Deduction on Works Contract

The Patna High Court ruled in favor of PCM Cement Concrete Pvt Ltd against the Union of India, stating that transactions purely representing inter-state sales of goods are not subject to VAT deductions under works contracts. The court emphasized that the sale was not a works contract nor a sale of goods taxable within Bihar. The Railways had made an incorrect deduction, deeming it a works contract.

Delhi HC: Assessing Authority Can Verify ITC Claims under DVAT Act

So, if you're planning to make an ITC claim, remember this ruling wher the Delhi High Court recently reinforced the power of the Assessing Authority under the Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) Act. The court ruled that the authority has the right to call for records and verify Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, dismissing an appeal by Chitra Hardware.

HC Allows Appeal Revival Before CESTAT with Pre-Deposit Payment.

HC Allows Appeal Revival with Pre-Deposit Payment after Delay Condonation.

Rajasthan HC Upholds Penalty on Chokhi Dhani Resorts for Adjusting Entire 'Entry Coupon' against Food under VAT.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a penalty on Chokhi Dhani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for adjusting the entire 'entry coupon' against food under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The court rejected the resort's argument that the coupon was for entertainment and food, ruling VAT was payable on the entire amount.

"Raitani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Wins Service Tax Appeal: Misclassification of Construction Services Leads to Overturned Tax Demand".

"Raitani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. won a service tax appeal filed against a 2011 order by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. The order had confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 47,48,716/- for 2005-06. The company argued that the construction work they undertook was not for commercial purposes, but for social needs, and thus should be classified as 'Works Contract Service', not 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services'. The ap ...

Your appeal time starts from the date department communicated you the order and DEPARTMENT SHOULD PROVE COMMUNICATION.

The case involves Metro Fashions' appeal against a demand notice from the Commissioner of Customs. Initially rejected as time-barred, the court agreed with Metro Fashions' claim that they received the original order later, making their appeal within the limitation period. The court remanded the case for a decision on merits.

Rajasthan High Court: Pizza and Sandwich qualify as ‘Cooked Foods’ for VAT exemption

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Pizza and Sandwich are considered ‘Cooked Foods’ and are eligible for exemption beyond 5% Value Added Tax (VAT). This ruling allows for consequential relief to the assessee. The court noted that with the changing times, the definition of ‘Cooked Foods’ has also evolved.

The notice of penalty is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the AO is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity.

Both the CIT (A ) as well as the ITAT had categorically held t hat in the present case, there wa s no record of satisfaction by the AO that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee. This being a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, in the absence of such pe tition, it was held that the two authorities had quite correctly ordered the dropping of penalty proceedings aga ...

Rajasthan Govt. doesn't allow partial exemption for levy on cement.

Rajasthan Govt. issued a notification that partial exemption of 50%/75% is allowed on the basis of increase in % of entire inter-State sales & decrease in % of stock transfers but the benefit under the said notification was not available on levy cement. A cement manufacturer claims the benefit under the same scheme despite of fact that it is not available on levy cement. SC dismissed the appeal as they cannot oppose the law made at any cost.-9003 ...

When will High court not hear you?

You may file an out of order petition with High Court. HC might have even accepted it. But HC may decide to not act on it. HC may send you back to lower authorities. And ask lower authorities to judge it on merits. It has happened in the VAT case of M Maheswary, where Kerala High Court relegated the petitioner to lower bodies.

Petitioner-Co. held entitled to avail ITC, HC

Co. mfd. Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipe & Asbestos Cement Sheets. Assessing Authority while passing orders u/s 22 of Act disallowed ITC & charged interest from Co. On appeal HC held, in view of express language of Sec. 18(1)(e) of Act, notifications S.O.371 & S.O.372 read with S.O.377, petitioner who is manufacturer of A.C. Sheets is entitled to avail ITC and the authorities below were not justified in denying Input Tax Credit to the petitioner.-9 ...

Assessee held entitled to claim credit after same was denied by Tribunal, HC

Appellant reg. dealer under VAT Act traded in electrical goods. VATO made disallowance of input credit & levied penalties. Tribunal upheld it. On appeal HC held, VAT authorities observed, scanty amts deposited by selling dealers was incommensurate with transactions recorded & straightaway proceeded to hold, they colluded with appellant. Such a priori conclusions are based on no material, or without inquiry & accordingly unworthy of acceptance.-90 ...

Sec. 26 of VAT Act can't be read as part HGST Act, HC

Petition filed by bank for quashing attachment order of Collector-cum-Deputy-Excise & Taxation Commissioner. HC held, It is not disputed that there is no provision in HGST Act corresponding to Sec. 26 of VAT Act. Thus, Sec. 26 of VAT Act can't be read as part of HGST Act because Sec. 61 is aimed at asserting only those rights which have accrued under HGST Act. There is no charge created on a property as has been created by Sec. 26 of VAT Act.-900 ...

Disallowance of input claimed by VAT officer held incorrect, HC

Appellant traded in electrical goods. VAT Officer by assessment orders disallowed input claimed on account of purchases from two dealers - M/s. Balaji Enterprises & M/s. R.S. International. Further, imposed penalty. On appeal HC held, VAT authorities observed, scanty amts deposited by selling dealers was incommensurate with transactions recorded & straightaway proceeded to hold, they colluded with appellant. This held, unworthy of acceptance.-900 ...

Notification declaring 'coal & furnace oil' as goods held illegal, HC

Petitioners disallowed from claiming any 'input tax credit' in respect of VAT paid by them on their purchase of 'Coal' & 'Furnace Oil'. HC held, impugned notification, limited to declaring 'coal & 'furnace oil' as goods at serial 1 & 2 thereof is illegal & therefore declare that said notification would not have any application & will stand quashed, since impugned notification is ultra virus Sec. 20(3) (b) & Sec. 2(25) & 2(27) of OVAT Act.-900265