UPVAT | Computation Of Correct ITC Be Examined By Assessing Authority Not Later Than Stage Of Making Regular Assessment Order: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that computation of correct input tax credit can only be done till the passing of the regular assessment order by the Assessing Authority and not at a later stage. The Court held that reverse input tax credit is neither a 'rate of tax' nor a 'turnover' which can be subjected to reassessment under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.Section 29 of the UPVAT Act empowers the Assessing Authority to initiate reassessment proceedings against an...

UPVAT | Intention To Evade Tax Essential For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 54(1)(2): Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.Section 54(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides for circumstances under which penalties can be imposed on an assesee. It is provided that where an assessing authority is satisfied that an assesee has committed any wrong mentioned therein, penalty can be imposed after giving due opportunity of hearing...

S.16 UPVAT Act | Invoices, RTGS Details Not Sufficient For Deciding ITC Claim, Transportation Details Must Be Produced: Allahabad High Court

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details.While dealing with Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 the Supreme Court in M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited held that burden to prove that claim for input tax credit and the genuineness of the transaction lies solely on...

S.58 UPVAT | In Revisional Jurisdiction, HC Must Uphold Sanctity Of Judgments/Orders, Must Intervene Only When There Are Compelling Reasons: Allahabad HC

While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Allahabad High Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.“High Courts, in their capacity as revisional bodies, are entrusted with the solemn duty of upholding the sanctity of such judgments and orders, and such, should not lightly disturb them unless compelling reasons of paramount...

Secured Creditor Registered With CERSAI Will Have Precedence Over VAT Authorities Against Proceeds Of Enforcement: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently clarified that in a sale of a mortgaged asset, where the mortgage in favour of a secured creditor is registered prior in time with CERSAI, and the MVAT Authorities too have a charge, the proceeds of the enforcement of the mortgage would first go towards discharging the dues owed to the secured creditor. It is only the residue, if any, after discharging the dues of the mortgagee, that may flow to the MVAT Authorities, added the Court. The High Court...

Madras High Court Directs AO To Allow Transitional Credit Of Purchase Tax Paid Under GST Act If Already Paid under VAT Act

The Madras High Court has directed the Assessing Officer to allow transitional credit of purchase tax paid under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, if the petitioner had paid “purchase tax” under Section 12(1) of the TNVAT Act.The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the petitioner deserves a chance to defend the case as the impugned assessment order was passed during the period when the country was in semi-lockdown mode. If the VAT-TDS had indeed remained unutilized for discharging...

S.5 Limitation Act Applies To Rectification Of Orders U/S 31 Of UP VAT Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to rectification of orders passed by officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides that any officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court may rectify any mistake apparent on the face of record in any of its order either on its own motion or on an application made by parties, within a...

Kerala VAT Act Empowers Taxing Authorities To Recover Tax Dues From Directors Of Private Company: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 39 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, empowers the taxing authorities to recover the tax dues from the directors of the private company if the company fails to make payment of the tax.The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that when the taxing authorities could not recover the dues from the company, they issued notice for recovery of the said tax dues against the petitioners, who are the directors.The petitioners are the directors...

UPVAT Act | Revision Jurisdiction Of High Court Limited To Questions Of Law, Jurisdictional Errors Or Procedural Irregularities: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held the revision jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural. The Court held that the High Court must refrain from going into questions of facts which have been decided by the Tribunal.Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 provides that any person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 57(7) or Section 57(8) of the UPVAT Act can file a...

NCLT Kochi Order “Preposterous” And “Untenable” Exceeding Jurisdiction In Declaring Tax Assessment Order Void: Kerala High Court

While allowing a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recently observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'. NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. ...

Re-Sellers Of Machine Adopted Same Classification As Seller: Kerala High Court Quashes Penalty Under KVAT Act

The Kerala High Court has quashed the penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act and held that re-sellers of machines have not wilfully classified machines under the wrong head and have adopted the same classification as the seller.The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that penalty proceedings have to be initiated when there is a willful or contumacious act on the part of the assessee to evade payment of the correct tax. The petitioners had reason to adopt the...

Hiring Of Motor Vehicle Or Cranes Is Not 'Sale Of Goods' If Control Over Equipment Is Retained By Contractor, VAT Can't Be Levied: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the hiring of motor vehicles/cranes from a contractor is a service and would not attract Sales Tax or Value Added Tax (VAT) assuming the transaction to be sale of goods. The Court clarified that transfer of right to use the goods not only includes possession but also control over goods by the user. If the control over the goods remains with the contractor during the hire period, then it cannot be termed as sale of goods and only service tax can be levied. The...