Failed To Comply With S.23(4) Of MVAT Act Along With Non-Application Of Mind & Legal Malafide: Bombay HC Quashes Assessment, Imposes 50K Cost On Dept

While considering a case where the Commercial tax department has flagrantly breached the statutory provisions of Sec 23(4) of the MVAT Act, the Bombay High Court ruled that assessment order passed by Commissioner of Sales tax is vitiated by total non-application of mind. Since a strong prima facie case is made out about manipulating the date of passing the assessment order, the High Court found that such manipulation was to create an impression that the order was made within the...

Notice of Assessment Issued Within Limitation, Assessment Order Valid Even If Passed Beyond Three-Year Period: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that if notice for completing assessment issued within limitation, then assessment order is within time even if passed beyond period of three years. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “as per Section 24(5), no assessment shall be made after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return under the Act relates. The test to be applied is whether the notice for completing the assessment was ...

NCLAT: Section 37 Of The MVAT Act And Section 33 Of The MPVAT Act Not Pari Materia With Section 48 Of The GVAT Act

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MVAT Act") and Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MPVAT Act”) are not pari materia with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (“GVAT Act”). The Tribunal held that the claim of the...

“Assessee Entitled To Hearing If Pre-Deposit Is Made”: Gauhati High Court Grants Fresh Hearing

The Gauhati High Court while granting a fresh hearing to the assessee stated that the benefit of hearing has to be given to the assessee as the statutory deposit has already been made by the assessee. The Bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that “This court though cannot find fault with the appellate authority in non-entertaining the appeal due to non-compliance of Section 79(5), however this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the...

Presumption Of Undervaluation Can't Be Drawn Just Because Of Higher MRP Rate On Product: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Hayana High Court stated that the presumption cannot be drawn that invoices are undervalued merely because MRP Rate mentioned on the product is higher. The Bench consists of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjay Vashisth observed that “it is also not a case of the State authorities that the invoices were different for the assessee in comparison to other distributors. Once there is no finding in this regard, a presumption cannot be drawn that the invoices were...

Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream Is Medicated Ointment, Taxable At 5% Under Entry 41 Schedule II UPVAT Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow's finding that Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream is a 'medicated ointment' and not an 'antiseptic cream'. It was held that Boro Plus Ayurvedic Cream is taxable at 5% under Entry 41 Schedule II of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Heading “Drugs and Medicines” in Entry 41, with effective from October 11, 2012, excludes medicated soap, shampoo, antiseptic cream, face cream, massage cream, eye jel and hair oil but...

Gujarat Value Added Tax Act | 'Purchase Price' Definition Doesn't Include Value Added Tax : Supreme Court

While Interpreting the definition of the 'Purchase Price' under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act of 2003 (“GVAT”), the Supreme Court on Friday (August 2) observed that the value-added tax would not be included in the definition of the purchase price. The Court held that no value-added tax would be added to the purchase price to calculate tax as the same is not mentioned in the categories of tax/duties enumerated under Section 2(18) of the GVAT. “The purchase price, therefore, would be the...

Denial Of Credit For Non-Registration Thiruvabhranam Commissioner Of Under KVAT Act Is Unjust: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner/assessee has paid tax at the prescribed rate on the materials procured by him from the Travancore Devaswom Board, and since this amount has already been paid over to the State Exchequer, any denial of credit to the assessee solely on the ground that the Travancore Devaswom Board/Truvabharanam Commissioner was not registered under the KVAT Act would be unjust.The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the definition of 'casual trader'...

Slump Sale Doesn't Amount To Sale Of Goods Within MVAT Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that slump sale under the Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) would not amount to sale of goods within the purview of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that it was completely a flawed approach on the part of the reviewing authority to tax part of the BTA considering it to be petitioner's sales/turnover of sales, for the financial year 2010-11 in respect of the amounts of the...

Statutory Scheme Determining Taxable Turnover Of Works Contract Under KVAT Act Doesn't Suffer From Any Defect: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the statutory scheme for determining the taxable turnover of a works contract under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) does not suffer from any defect so as to render it unworkable to effectuate the charge to tax on a works contract. The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. has observed that it was incumbent upon the petitioner or assessee to declare the total turnover (contract receipts) pertaining solely to the works...

Unreasoned Orders By Judicial/ Quasi-Judicial Authorities Violate Natural Justice: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Assessment Order

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an assessment order passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur (“CCT”) under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court observed that the assessment order was unreasoned and was passed without any application of mind, violating the principles of natural justice.The assessee had filed his returns for the assessment year 2014-15 claiming input tax credit (“ITC”). However, the demand for ITC was turned down by CCT by passing an...

S.2(e) UPVAT | Plant, Machinery Sold After Closure Of Business Are Capital Goods, Excluded From Levy Of Tax: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that plant and machinery sold after the closure of business are capital goods under Section 2(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and are excluded from levy of tax under the amended definition of 'business' under Section 2(e) of the Act.The definition of 'business' under Section 2(e)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was amended in 2014 to include any transaction, even after the closure of business, if it relates to sale of goods...