sgalaw.insgalaw.in/image/sga_composite_newsletter_issue19.pdf · sga law – 2015 q4 (october...
TRANSCRIPT
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 1
COMPOSITE JOURNAL, 2015
(October Issue 19 to December Issue 24)
CONTENTS
PAGES
1. NOMINAL INDEX ..... 2-5
2. SUBJECT INDEX ..... 6-61
3. SECTION INDEX ..... 62-67
4. REPORTS OF CASES ..... 68-455
5. NOTIFICATIONS ..... 456-489
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 2
COMPOSITE JOURNAL, 2015
(October Issue 19 to December Issue 24)
NOMINAL INDEX
AAAAA 5
A AASRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 392
AGGARWAL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 422
AJAY ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 292
AMAR NATH AGGARWAL INVESTMENTS (P) LTD VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 244
AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (P&H) 301
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS STATE OF PUNJAB (P&H) 265
ASHIRWAD SALES CORPORATION VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 454
B BHAWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 389
BOMBAY INTERIOR DECORATERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 354
C CENTRAL PHOENIX CLUB VS STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) 309
COMMERCIAL MOTORS LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. (SC) 74
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER VS A INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (SC) 184
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS ANAND FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS (P&H) 332
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS SARON MECHANICAL WORKS (P&H) 345
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV VS FITRITE PACKERS (SC) 84
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHD VS DHIMAN INDUSTRIES (P&H) 259
D DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. (SC) 90
DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 229
E EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (P&H) 250
ESS EMM METAL WORKS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 276
F FRIENDS HI-TECH INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 404
G GILAN INTEL CABLES LTD VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TBNL & ANR. (P&H) 335
GUJARAT INDUSTRIES & ORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I (SC) 208
GUPTA STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (P&H) 285
GURDASPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 440
H HPL ADDITIVES LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 263
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 3
I ITC LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 430
J J.K. ASSOCIATES VS EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER (P&H) 324
J.K. IRON STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 397
J.S.R. RELATORS PVT. LTD. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (P&H) 330
JAI BHAGWATI RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 407
JALANDHAR ENGINEERING CO. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 424
JBJ PERFUMES PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (P&H) 351
K KARTAR TRACTORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 370
KATARIA RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 419
KIRPAL EXPORTS VS DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER (P&H) 312
L LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD (SC) 174
LLOYD ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING LTD VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. (SC) 68
M M.K. INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 248
MANOJ KUMAR KANSAL VS STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) 217
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 290
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LDH VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX (P&H) 237
MUNISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF PUNJAB (P&H) 219
N NEW DEVI GRIT UDYOG VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 294
O OM PARKASH SURINDER MOHAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 359
ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. (P&H) 234
P P.D. AGGARWAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 399
PANKAJ MOTORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 232
PATIALA AUTO ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 376
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 240
PIONEER ELECTRONICS VS UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH (P&H) 225
PRAKASH PIPES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. (P&H) 269
PRERNA STRIPS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (P&H) 221
PUNJ LLOYD LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 432
R RAMESH AND COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 365
RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) 272
RISHAB FARMS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 257
RUKHMINI POLYTUBES P. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 246
S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (P&H) 281
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 4
SANJEEV STONE CRUSHING COMPANY VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 339
SATPAL SURINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 385
SHAKTI MITTAL CONTRACTOR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHER (P&H) 223
SHIVANSH MOTORS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 444
SHREE GANESH ROLLER FLOUR MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 437
SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (SC) 196
SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. (SC) 161
STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES (P&H) 315
SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 450
SUPERFINE RICE INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 374
SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 368
SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 254
T TALSON MILL STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB (P&H) 279
TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, HISAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 326
V VANSER METALICS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 427
VARSHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 328
VIJAY AUTO ELECTRICAL PARTS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 410
VIKAS JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 413
NOTICE, CIRCULAR AND NOTIFICATION
CHANDIGARH U.T.
DATE EXTENDED FOR E-FILING OF VAT-20 19.11.2015 460
NOTIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS IN SCHEDULE B & E OF PUNJAB VAT ACT, 2005
NO. E&T-ETO (REF.)-2015/3646 11.12.2015 457
NOTIFICATION REGARDING LEVY OF LUXURY TAX ON HOTELS & BANQUETS
NO. E&T/ETO (REF.)-2015/3605 07.12.2015 458
PUNJAB
PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING EXTENTION OF DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR Q-2 OF 2015-16 29.12.2015 459
AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE-III OF THE PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 2002 NO. S.O.49/P.A.8/2002/S.53/2015 10.11.2015 460
AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE-E APPENDED TO THE PUNJAB VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2005
(PUNJAB ACT NO. 8 OF 2005). NO. S.O.50/P.A.8/2005/S.8/2015 17.11.2015 461
DATE EXTENDED FOR E-FILING OF VAT-20 19.11.2015 462
THE PUNJAB DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (VALIDATION)
ORDINANCE, 2015 NO. 40-LEG./2015 14.12.2015 463
NOTIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENT IN SEC. 25 OF PIDRA ACT, 2002 NO. 32-LEG./2015 27.11.2015 470
NOTIFICATION REGARDING TAX ON PAPER BOARD UNDER THE CST ACT
NO.S.O.56/C.A.74/1956/S.8/2015 02.12.2015 473
NOTIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENT SCHEDULES 'B' AND 'E' OF THE PVAT ACT, 2005
NO.S.O.57/P.A.8/2005/S.8/2015 02.12.2015 474
PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2015
NO. 19-PLA-2015/199 21.12.2015 475
HARYANA
NOTIFICATION REGARDING LUMPSUM SCHEME FOR DEVELOPERS NO.23/H.A.6/2003/S.60/2015 24.11.2015 478
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 5
DISCUSSION FORUM ON GST FOR ALL SHAKEHOLDERS 485
REPORT ON BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR GST ON REFUND PROCESSES IN GST REGIME 485
REPORT ON BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR GST ON REGISTRATION PROCESSES IN GST REGIME 486
REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR GST- PAYMENT 487
ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING ONLINE RETURN FOR
THE QUARTER ENDING 30-09-2015 UPTO 16-11-2015 UNDER SECTION 54-A(3) OF HVAT ACT,2003 02.11.2015 488
AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE E UNDER THE HVAT ACT, 2003
NO. 27 /ST-1/H.A. 6/2003/S.59/2015 24.11.2015 489
AAAAA
AAAA
Edited by
Aanchal Goyal, Advocate Partner SGA Law Offices
#224, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh – 160022
Teleface: +91-172-5016400, 2614017, 2608532, 4608532
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:- While every effort has been made to ensure that this newsletter is free from errors or omissions, the authors/editors shall not be
liable in any manner whatsoever for any action taken or omitted to be taken opinions expressed advice rendered or accepted based on any
materials or information published in this newsletter. The information given in the present Newsletter is for the personal use of the intended recipient and should not be used in any commercial activity.
http://www.sgalaw.inmailto:[email protected]://www.facebook.com/pages/SGA-Law-Offices/160012497412971
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 6
COMPOSITE JOURNAL, 2015
(October Issue 19 to December Issue 24)
SUBJECT INDEX
AAAA 5
ADVANCE TAX
ADVANCE TAX – EXEMPTION – APPLICATION FILED FOR RENEWAL – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM
RESPONDENT - WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER DECIDING
THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY PETITIONER WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED – S.6(7) OF PVAT ACT,
2005 - SHAKTI MITTAL CONTRACTOR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHER 221
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
WRIT/ALTERNATIVE REMEDY –SERVICE TAX – VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE ENCOURAGEMENT
SCHEME – APPLICATION FILED FOR DECLARING SERVICE TAX UNDER VCES SCHEME –
APPLICATION REJECTED – WRIT FILED – DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF IMPUGNED ORDER BEING
APPEALABLE – PETITIONER ALLOWED TO TAKE RECOURSE TO REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER LAW -
VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE ENCOURAGEMENT SCHEME, 2013 - J.S.R. RELATORS PVT. LTD. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 330
AMENDMENT
EXIM POLICY – AMENDMENT IN THE POLICY BY NOTIFICATION – CHALLENGE ON THE GROUND OF
NOT BEING IN PUBLIC INTEREST – GOVERNMENT PLACING ON RECORD DOCUMENTS SHOWING
RAMPANT MISUSE OF EXISTING POLICY REQUIRING THE AMENDMENT – ANALYSIS OF DATA
SUBSTANTIATES THE CLAIM OF GOVERNMENT – NOTIFICATION AMENDING POLICY HELD TO BE IN
PUBLIC INTEREST - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90
EXIM POLICY – AMENDMENT – WHETHER CLARIFICATORY - EXCLUSION OF SALES MADE BY ONE
STATUS HOLDER TO ANOTHER – HELD CLARIFICATORY – EXCLUSION OF SALE BY NON-STATUS
HOLDER TO STATUS HOLDER FOR CALCULATING THE VALUE OF EXPORT FOR INCREMENTAL
GROWTH – ALSO HELD CLARIFICATORY – SAME BENEFIT BEING ALREADY AVAILABLE TO
SEZ/EOU/EHTP/STP – AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY TO EXCLUDE DOUBLE BENEFIT – HELD
CLARIFICATORY - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90
AMENDMENT OF POLICY
EXIM POLICY – PUBLIC NOTICE – WHETHER POLICY CAN BE AMENDED THROUGH PUBLIC NOTICE
– ACT PRESCRIBES FOLLOWING OF PROPER PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT OF POLICY – SUCH
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MANDATORY – THE CONTENTS OF PUBLIC NOTICE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION EVEN IF IT WAS ISSUED FOR VALID REASONS AND RATIONALE - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 7
AMALGAMATION
EXEMPTED UNIT - EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE – AMALGAMATION – AMALGAMATION OF TWO
EXISTING EXEMPTED UNITS AS PER AMALGAMATION SCHEME – LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO
TRANSFER BENEFITS OF THE OTHER COMPANY TO ITS COMPANY U/R 28B OF HGST RULES IN VIEW
OF AMALGAMATION – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED – WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO TAKE A
DECISION ON THE LETTERS SENT BY THE PETITIONER REGARDING ISSUANCE OF AMENDED
ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE WITHIN THE PERIOD SO SPECIFIED – WRIT DISPOSED OF - RULE 28B (10-
C)OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RISHAB FARMS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 257
ANTICIPATORY BAIL
FORGERY – ANTICIPATORY BAIL –INDIAN PENAL CODE- RECEIPT FORGED REGARDING PAYMENT OF
VAT – F.I.R LODGED – ANTICIPATORY BAIL SOUGHT – REJECTION OF ON THE GROUND OF
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION BEING REQUIRED TO REACH THE DEPTH OF THE MATTER – PRAYER
DECLINED – PETITION DISMISSED – S. 420/467/468/471 OF IPC - MUNISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF PUNJAB 217
APPEAL
APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF APPELLANT - DISMISSAL OF FIRST APPEAL ON
31/5/2011 – FILING OF APPEAL AFTER MORE THAN THREE YEARS – CONDONATION SOUGHT ON
BASIS OF ALLEGED INJURY AND HEALTH PROBLEM OF APPELLANT IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS – HELD
NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PRODUCED TO SHOW ALLEGED ILLNESS – CASUAL APPROACH ON PART
OF APPELLANT – EXPLANATION TENDERED IS NOT REASONABLE AND GENUINE – APPEAL DISMISSED
– S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SATPAL SURINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB 385
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED –
PENALTY IMPOSED BY AETC– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR DELAYED FILING – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL – CONTENTION RAISED THAT DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO SERIOUS ILLNESS OF
APPELLANT‟S ADVOCATE FOLLOWED BY HIS DEATH – HELD APPELLANT ALWAYS FOUND GUILTY OF
WILFUL NEGLECT – ENTRY TAX NOT PAID - NON APPEARANCE BEFORE PENALIZING OFFICER
DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES OBSERVED – NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS – NO EFFORT
MADE TO FILE APPEAL INSPITE OF THE KNOWING FULLY ABOUT ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – APPEAL
FILED TWO MONTHS POST EXPIRY OF COUNSEL - CASUAL APPROACH TAKEN TO GAIN TIME –
ADMISSION REGARDING NOT INFORMING AT ICC TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – DELAY NOT CONDONED -
APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BHAWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 389
LIMITATION – APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY – DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY STATE –
FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT PASSED BY APEX COURT, HELD; MERELY BECAUSE DELAY IS BY STATE,
DELAY NOT TO BE CONDONED IN ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE – APPEAL DISMISSED ON GROUNDS
OF LIMITATION- S.5 OF LIMITATION ACT - STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES 315
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – LIMITATION – COPY OF PENALTY ORDER RECEIVED WITHIN
TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF ORDER - FIRST APPEAL DISMISSED DUE TO DELAY OF 370 DAYS IN
FILING – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT COPY OF ORDER LOST BY
COUNSEL‟S EMPLOYEE – FINALLY APPEAL FILED AFTER COPY WAS RECOVERED DURING
RENOVATION – EXPLANATION APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT – COPY OF ORDER COULD HAVE
BEEN RECOVERED FROM ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN CASE OF LOSS OF PREVIOUS ONE – NO AFFIDAVIT
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 8
OF EMPLOYEE OF ADVOCATE GIVEN BY APPELLANT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT,
2005 - ITC LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB 430
APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME
APPEAL – ASSESSMENT ORDER – EXTENSION OF TIME – ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED - VIRES OF S.
29(4) UPHELD SUBSEQUENTLY BY HIGH COURT – WRIT FILED SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IN VIEW OF S.29(4) OF THE ACT –
PRAYER GRANTED – LIBERTY GIVEN TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS BEFORE APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY – APPEAL NOT TO BE DISMISSED ON GROUND OF LIMITATION IF FILED WITHIN THE TIME
SPECIFIED – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – S. 29 & 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 290
APPEAL - JURISDICTION
APPEAL – APPELLATE AUTHORITY – JURISDICTION - POWER TO ADJUDICATE ON ISSUES BEYOND
SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL – NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY CALCULATED BY DESIGNATED OFFICER
BY ADDING PRIMARY FREIGHT TWICE BY MISTAKE ALTHOUGH PRINCIPALLY IT AGREED WITH THE
APPELLANT ON THE METHOD OF CALCULATING IT - APPEAL FILED BEFORE DETC ON THE GROUNDS
OF MATHEMATICAL MISCALCULATION OF NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY- DEPARTMENT ARGUED THAT
MATTER NEEDED FRESH CONSIDERATION AS STOCK VALUE TRANSFER STOOD CALCULATED ON
LOWER SIDE THEREBY RAISING A NEW CONTENTION – MATTER REMANDED BY DETC FOR FRESH
DECISION ON THE BASIS OF FRESH ISSUE RAISED– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL – APPEAL
BEFORE HIGH COURT – HELD: FOLLOWING EARLIER JUDGMENTS, APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOT
JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE MATTER ON BASIS OF THOSE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT
MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE IT- IMPUGNED ORDERS SET ASIDE – DETC TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER
HEARING BOTH PARTIES – S. 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 301
APPEAL - LIMITATION
LIMITATION – APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY – DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY STATE –
FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT PASSED BY APEX COURT, HELD; MERELY BECAUSE DELAY IS BY STATE,
DELAY NOT TO BE CONDONED IN ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE – APPEAL DISMISSED ON GROUNDS
OF LIMITATION- S.5 OF LIMITATION ACT - STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES 315
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – LIMITATION – COPY OF PENALTY ORDER RECEIVED WITHIN
TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF ORDER - FIRST APPEAL DISMISSED DUE TO DELAY OF 370 DAYS IN
FILING – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT COPY OF ORDER LOST BY
COUNSEL‟S EMPLOYEE – FINALLY APPEAL FILED AFTER COPY WAS RECOVERED DURING
RENOVATION – EXPLANATION APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT – COPY OF ORDER COULD HAVE
BEEN RECOVERED FROM ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN CASE OF LOSS OF PREVIOUS ONE – NO AFFIDAVIT
OF EMPLOYEE OF ADVOCATE GIVEN BY APPELLANT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT,
2005 - ITC LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB 430
APPEAL - PREDEPOSIT
SERVICE TAX -PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – DEMAND RAISED FOR SERVICE TAX
ON ACCOUNT OF SPACE SOLD FOR ADVERTISEMENTS BY ASSESSEE – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL –
STAY GRANTED SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE DEMAND AND INTEREST – APPEAL DISMISSED LATER
FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF STAY ORDER – APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT – WAIVER OF REMAINING
PART OF PREDEPOSIT PRAYED FOR AS 40% OF SERVICE TAX LIABILITY STOOD DEPOSITED –
CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALONGWITH THE FACTUM OF DEPOSIT OF
40% OF SERVICE TAX; REMAINING AMOUNT NOT TO BE INSISTED UPON FOR PREDEPOSIT –
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 9
TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON MERITS – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – S.35G OF CENTRAL
EXCISE ACT, 1944 - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX 237
PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – INPUT TAX CREDIT – ADJUSTMENT OF – DEMAND
RAISED ON ASSESSMENT – APPEAL FILED ALONGWITH APPLICATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS
ITC TOWARDS PAYMENT FOR PREDEPOSIT – TIN NUMBER LOCKED SUBSEQUENTLY – WRIT FILED –
FACT OF TIN NUMBER BEING UNLOCKED BY THEN NOT DISPUTED – ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS ITC
TOWARDS PAYMENT FOR PREDEPOSIT IN COMPLIANCE OF S 62(5) OF THE ACT PERMITTED – WRIT
DISPOSED OF – S. 62(5), S 13 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - HPL ADDITIVES LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 263
PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL- ENTERTAINMENT OF – ADJUSTMENT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT – DISMISSAL OF
FIRST APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION OF PAYMENT OF 25% OF ADDITIONAL
DEMAND - APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL PRAYING ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS ITC TOWARDS PAYMENT
OF PREDEPOSIT – DEPARTMENT DIRECTED TO ADJUST THE UNUSED ITC LYING WITH IT AS SHOWN IN
LAST RETURNS – DETC TO HEAR APPEAL ON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF THE SAME – APPEAL ACCEPTED
– S. 62(5) OF THE ACT - SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 368
PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – DEMAND RAISED ON ASSESSMENT – DISMISSAL OF
FIRST APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF NON COMPLIANCE OF S 62(5) OF THE ACT – APPEAL FILED BEFORE
TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR WAIVER OF PREDEPOSIT AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUPPOSEDLY
ILLEGAL AS WELL AS WRIT FILED CHALLENGING VIRES OF S. 62(5) – ORDER OF STAY RESTRAINING
COURTS FROM DISMISSING APPEALS ON GROUNDS OF PREDEPOSIT VACATED BY HIGH COURT –
CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL PENDING BEFORE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH S.
62(5) OF THE ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED- S. 62(5) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - KARTAR TRACTORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 370
PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – DEMAND RAISED -DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY FIRST
APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF CONDITION OF PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL – STATUTE STANDS CLARIFIED POST AMENDMENT REGARDING AMOUNT OF PREDEPOSIT
AS TO BE 25% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEMAND – NO EXPLANATION TENDERED BY APPELLANT AS TO
WHY APPEAL SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED WITHOUT PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL DISMISSED GRANTING
FURTHER TIME TO APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT FAILING WHICH ORDERS PASSED BY DETC
TO REMAIN INTACT – S. 62(5) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - J.K. IRON STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB 397
PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – INPUT TAX CREDIT – SELLING DEALER – ITC OF
ASSESSEE- APPELLANT REJECTED AS TAX NOT DEPOSITED BY SELLING DEALERS - DISMISSAL OF
FIRST APPEAL FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF S. 62(5) OF THE ACT – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL
PRAYING WAIVER OF PREDEPOSIT – HELD, DENIAL OF ITC FOR NON DEPOSIT OF TAX BY SELLING
DEALER WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON APPELLANT – ASSESSMENT CASE OF THE
APPELLANT TO BE DECIDED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS SELLING DEALERS – MATTER
REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY – DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED AGAINST THE SELLING
DEALERS, IF FOUND LIABLE – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S. 62(5) AND S. 13 - FRIENDS HI-TECH INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF PUNJAB 404
PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS –DISMISSAL OF FIRST
APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF S. 62(5) OF THE PVAT ACT –
APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE APPEAL URGING THAT
WRIT PETITIONS PENDING BEFORE APEX COURT AFTER VACATION OF STAY WITH RESPECT TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF S. 62(5) –ALSO, ARGUED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID - PROCEEDINGS
NOT TO BE STAYED MERELY DUE TO PENDENCY OF WRIT PETITION – APPELLANT IN A GOOD
POSITION TO PAY THE REQUISITE AMOUNT – S. 62(5) AND R. 71 HELD TO BE MANDATORY IN
NATURE- ILLEGALITY OF ORDER TO BE SEEN DURING PROCEEDINGS – APPEAL DISMISSED –
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 10
PREDEPOSIT TO BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS FOR HEARING OF APPEAL – S. 62(5) AND R. 71 OF
THE ACT - PUNJ LLOYD LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 432
APPEAL – PREDEPOSIT – ENTERTAINMENT OF – APPELLATE AUTHORITY – DISMISSAL OF FIRST
APPEAL DUE TO NON COMPLIANCE OF PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING
POWER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ITS MATTER CONTENDING THAT DETC WAS
VESTED WITH ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS – APPELLANT STOPPED FROM TAKING SUCH PLEA AT
THIS STAGE AS IT WERE NEVER TAKEN EARLIER – NON COMPLIANCE OF PREDEPOSIT U/ S 62(5)
BEING MANDATORY, APPEAL WAS RIGHTLY NOT ENTERTAINED – APPELLANT GRANTED FURTHER
TIME FOR PREDEPOSIT FOR ENTERTAINMENT OF ITS APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY –
S. 62(5) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 AND RULE 71(3) OF PVAT RULES - ASHIRWAD SALES CORPORATION VS STATE OF PUNJAB 454
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
APPEAL – APPELLATE AUTHORITY – JURISDICTION - POWER TO ADJUDICATE ON ISSUES BEYOND
SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL – NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY CALCULATED BY DESIGNATED OFFICER
BY ADDING PRIMARY FREIGHT TWICE BY MISTAKE ALTHOUGH PRINCIPALLY IT AGREED WITH THE
APPELLANT ON THE METHOD OF CALCULATING IT - APPEAL FILED BEFORE DETC ON THE GROUNDS
OF MATHEMATICAL MISCALCULATION OF NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY- DEPARTMENT ARGUED THAT
MATTER NEEDED FRESH CONSIDERATION AS STOCK VALUE TRANSFER STOOD CALCULATED ON
LOWER SIDE THEREBY RAISING A NEW CONTENTION – MATTER REMANDED BY DETC FOR FRESH
DECISION ON THE BASIS OF FRESH ISSUE RAISED– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL – APPEAL
BEFORE HIGH COURT – HELD: FOLLOWING EARLIER JUDGMENTS, APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOT
JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE MATTER ON BASIS OF THOSE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT
MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE IT- IMPUGNED ORDERS SET ASIDE – DETC TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER
HEARING BOTH PARTIES – S. 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 301
ASSESSMENT
WORKS CONTRACT - DEVELOPER/BUILDER – ASSESSMENT – FLATS/ APARTMENTS / UNITS – SALE
OF – ASSESSEE DEVELOPER OF FLATS/APARTMENTS - TAX CHARGED INCLUDING VALUE OF LAND –
NOTICE SERVED ON APPELLANT AS ALLEGED BY DEPARTMENT - WRIT FILED CONTENDING
IMPOSITION OF TAX NOT VALID THERE BEING NO MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF TAX AND IT
BEING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY – QUESTION OF LIMITATION REGARDING PROCEEDINGS
TAKEN UP – HELD: IN VIEW OF AN EARLIER JUDGMENT WHERE THE SAME ISSUE IS ALREADY
ADJUDICATED THE MATTER SENT TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY- PETITIONER AT LIBERTY TO AGITATE
POINT OF LIMITATION ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO SHALL PASS A SPEAKING
ORDER – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S. 2 (1) (zg) OF HVAT ACT, R. 25(2) OF HVAT RULES - SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 254
ASSESSMENT - DECLARATION FORMS – WHETHER PRODUCTION AT APPELLATE STAGE
PERMISSIBLE – ASSESSMENT FRAMED RAISING DEMAND – APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIGH COURT
SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE THE REQUIRED DECLARATION FORMS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
– PERMISSION TO PRODUCE THE FORMS BEFORE ASSESSING AUTHORITY GRANTED IN VIEW OF AN
EARLIER JUDGMENT – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – RULE 28B OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA 272
ASSESSMENT – EX PARTE ASSESSMENT – NOTICE – IMPROPER SERVICE – NOTICE ALLEGEDLY
SERVED TO ASSESSEE BEFORE FRAMING ASSESSMENT – ASSESSMENT FRAMED EX PARTE – ITC
DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INVOICES AND NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS – WRIT FILED CONTENDING
PRIOR NOTICE NOT SERVED ON ASSESSEE – PETITIONER WILLING TO FURNISH REQUIRED
DOCUMENTARY PROOF – WRIT ALLOWED WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 11
PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING ORDER – PUNJAB VAT ACT, 2005 - ESS EMM METAL WORKS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 276
ASSESSMENT – LIMITATION – YEAR 2005-06 – ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 30.03.2011 – DETC
REMANDING THE CASE BACK – APPEAL FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL – ASSESSING AUTHORITY AGAIN
PASSED THE ORDER DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DISMISSED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BY WAY OF PRE-DEPOSIT – TRIBUNAL
DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN THE MEANWHILE HOLDING THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS – ON APPEAL
BEFORE HIGH COURT – MATTER SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT –
ASSESSMENT FOR 2005-06 CANNOT BE FRAMED BEYOND THREE YEARS – APPEAL ALLOWED - TALSON MILL STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB 279
ASSESSMENT – LIMITATION – ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 – FRAMING OF IN YEAR 2012 – APPEAL
FILED CONTENDING ASSESSMENT TO BE TIME BARRED BEING FRAMED AFTER THREE YEARS –
ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED IS HELD TO BE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD – AMENDMENT OF S
29(4), HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, PERMITS FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX
YEARS – APPEAL DISMISSED- S.29 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - JAI BHAGWATI RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 407
REVISION – ASSESSMENT – JURISDICTION – REVISIONAL AUTHORITY - SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR
REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD – WRIT FILED
CHALLENGING THE NOTICE ON THE BASIS OF ABSENCE OF POWER OF THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH
NOTICE – HELD: NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE NOTICE – PETITIONER OUGHT TO
FILE REPLY AND RAISE ALL PLEAS AS RAISED IN THIS WRIT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES - REVISIONAL
AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE REPLY WITHIN SIX WEEKS, IF FILED, AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER –
PETITIONER OPEN TO TAKE RECOURSE TO AVAILABLE REMEDIES IN CASE OF GRIEVANCE BY THE
ORDER SO PASSED – S.34 OF HVAT ACT, 2005 - AJAY ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 292
ASSESSMENT – EXEMPTION – EXEMPTED UNIT – EXPORT – EXPORT UNIT ENJOYING EXEMPTION-
RICE EXPORTED OUT OF PADDY PURCHASED- ANNUAL STATEMENT FILED - LEVY OF PURCHASE TAX
ON PADDY BY ASSESSING AUTHORITY – DISALLOWANCE OF ITC ON ONE HAND AND REVERSAL OF
ITC ON OTHER HAND – APPEAL DISMISSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT PASSING
SPEAKING ORDER – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MATTER REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING
AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER – S.13, S.19 OF
PVAT ACT, 2005 - KATARIA RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 419
ASSESSMENT ORDER
APPEAL – ASSESSMENT ORDER – EXTENSION OF TIME – ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED - VIRES OF S.
29(4) UPHELD SUBSEQUENTLY BY HIGH COURT – WRIT FILED SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IN VIEW OF S.29(4) OF THE ACT –
PRAYER GRANTED – LIBERTY GIVEN TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS BEFORE APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY – APPEAL NOT TO BE DISMISSED ON GROUND OF LIMITATION IF FILED WITHIN THE TIME
SPECIFIED – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – S. 29 & 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 290
ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX
PENALTY – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – CHECK POST / ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ENTRY TAX – GOODS
VEHICLE – DETENTION OF – GOODS VEHICLE DETAINED – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7) OF THE ACT
– ALONG WITH LEVY OF ENTRY TAX UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF 2015 – WRIT FILED FOR RELEASE
OF GOODS – PETITIONER DIRECTED TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE FOR RELEASE OF GOODS WHICH
WOULD NOT BE ENCASHED TILL THE QUESTION OF VIRES OF ORDINANCE 2015 IS ADJUDICATED
UPON – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S.51(7)( C)PVAT ACT, 2005; S. 7 OF PUNJAB DEVELOPMENT OF
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 12
TRADE AND COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL ORDINANCE 2015 - M.K. INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 248
PENALTY – CHECK POST – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – INGENUINE BILL – GOODS IN TRANSIT SOLD
TO FIRM B, JALANDHAR -BILL NO. 705 PRODUCED SHOWING GOODS AS „REJECTED AND RETURNED
– GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT THE GOODS WERE ORIGINALLY SUPPLIED TO
FIRM A IN HAMBRAN VIDE BILL NO 704 OF THE SAME DATE WHICH WERE REJECTED BY BUYER –
RELOADED FOR SALE TO FIRM B FROM PREMISES OF FIRM A ALONGWITH BILL 705 – SAID NOTE ON
BILL PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WRONGLY ON BILL 705 DUE TO FAULT OF EMPLOYEE
OF REJECTING FIRM – PENALTY IMPOSED AS SALE BILL FILE REFLECTED PLACE OF LOADING AS
LUDHIANA – FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVED SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHT IN
BOTH CONSIGNMENTS AND PLEA OF OVERSIGHT BY EMPLOYEE NOT CONVINCING – PENALTY
UPHELD BY HIGH COURT AS FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW NOT PERVERSE – APPEAL
DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 250
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – DECLARATION FORM
XXXVI – GOODS IN TRANSIT CHECKED- ABSENCE OF FORM XXXVI – DRIVER STATED TO HAVE
TAKEN ESCAPE ROUTE ON APPELLANT‟S DIRECTIONS TO AVOID DECLARATION AT ICC – PENALTY
IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – PLEA THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN TO AVOID TOLL TAX
NOT ACCEPTED – WITHDRAWL OF DRIVER‟S STATEMENT CONSIDERED TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT -
NO PROMPT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INDICATED MANIPULATION OF ENTRIES – NON
FURNISHING OF DECLARATION AT ICC VIEWED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – PENALTY
UPHELD – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BOMBAY INTERIOR DECORATERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 354
PENALTY – CHECK POST /ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – ESCAPE ROUTE –
GOODS (SUGAR) IN TRANSIT INTERCEPTED ON ESCAPE ROUTE – ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING
ADOPTING ESCAPE ROUTE ON OWNER‟S DIRECTION – GOODS DETAINED – ADMISSION BY
APPELLANT THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN BY DRIVER IN ORDER TO KEEP TRANSACTION OUT OF
BOOKS – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7)(c) OF THE ACT – APPEAL FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD
„SUGAR‟ BECAME TAXABLE ON JULY 24, 2012 WHICH IS BEFORE THE DATE OF DISPATCH OF GOODS
IN QUESTION – CONTENTION REGARDING APPELLANT‟S IGNORANCE OF SUGAR BEING TAXABLE NOT
ACCEPTED - MISTAKE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE – ADMISSION BY APPELLANT REGARDING TAKING OF
ESCAPE ROUTE INTENTIONALLY CONFIRMS ITS AWARENESS ABOUT SUGAR BEING EXIGIBLE TO TAX
AND CANNOT TO BE SKIPPED OVER - APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - RAMESH AND COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB 365
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING -ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – UNREGISTERED
DEALER – GOODS IN TRANSIT REACHED ICC – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED- APPELLANT FOUND TO BE
UNREGISTERED IN PUNJAB – CONSIGNMENT MENTIONED THAT REGISTRATION ALREADY APPLIED
FOR – GOODS DETAINED – FACTUALLY, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE APPLIED AND RECEIVED FEW
DAYS LATER AFTER DETENTION BUT BEFORE ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ARISING OF TAX
LIABILITY – PENALTY IMPOSED FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT REGARDING REGISTRATION
BEING APPLIED FOR BEFORE DETENTION – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MERE DISCLOSURE OF
WRONG FACT DOES NOT NEGATE HIS RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM
THE DATE THE LIABILITY AROSE- VOLUNTARY REPORTING – DOCUMENTS FOUND TO BE CORRECT –
TRANSACTION DULY STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETURNS – FORMALITIES COMPLETED BY
APPELLANT - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.51(7)(b) AND S.21 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AASRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 392
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 13
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOLD ORNAMENTS
CARRIED BY EMPLOYEES IN A BUS FROM DELHI TO PUNJAB – GOODS CHECKED BY POLICE AND
EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERS INFORMED PURSUANT THERETO – EMPLOYEES STATED AT FIRST
INSTANCE THAT GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY IN PATIALA TO A JEWELLER – GOODS DETAINED –
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – ADMISSION AT
FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY AND NON DISCLOSURE AT ICC– NO
AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY PURCHASING JEWELLER THAT GOODS NOT MEANT FOR DELIVERY TO HIM –
BILL PRODUCED NOT INDICATIVE OF GOODS BEING TAKEN FOR DISPLAY AS ALLEGED – ACCOUNT
BOOKS FOUND MANIPULATED – ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF INFORMATION AT VIRTUAL ICC –
ALL THESE FACTS INDICATIVE OF INITIAL STATEMENT MADE BY EMPLOYEES REGARDING
DELIVERY OF GOODS BEING TRUE- APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VIKAS JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 413
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOODS IN TRANSIT –
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AT ICC – GOODS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD TO FIRM C BY FIRM B ON
THE ORDER OF FIRM A - PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51 FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL – NO ENDORSEMENT OBSERVED ON BILL- ABSENCE OF NAME OF PURCHASER AND TIN
NUMBER OF SELLING DEALER – INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – PENALTY RIGHTLY LEVIED – APPEAL
DISMISSED – S.51(7)(b) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AGGARWAL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 422
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – NON GENERATION OF
e-ICC – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING STOCK TRANSFER
INVOICE AND GR – NO E-ICC PRODUCED – GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT E-
ICC NOT GENERATED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL FAULT IN OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGARDING WHICH
WRITTEN INFORMATION DULY GIVEN TO AUTHORITIES – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL- NON GENERATION OF E-ICC DUE TO TECHNICAL FAULT OF WEBSITE INDICATES
BONAFIDES AS AUTHORITIES STOOD INFORMED BY APPELLANT – GOODS NOT MEANT FOR SALE AND
WERE BEING TRANSPORTED WITHIN THE STATE – NO MENSREA TO EVADE TAX RECORDED BY
PENALIZING OFFICER– EXCISE DUTY ALREADY PAID - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.
51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VANSER METALICS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 427
PENALTY – CHECK POST / ROADSIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX –NEW CAR IN TRANSIT
APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING TEMPORARY REGISTRATION , INSURANCE
COVER, COPY INVOICE – DETENTION PRESUMING IT TO BE MEANT FOR SALE AND ABSENCE OF
GENERATION OF VAT XXXVI – PENALTY LEVIED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: NO
EVIDENCE TO SHOW CAR MEANT FOR SALE – NO ADMISSION ON PART OF DRIVER IN THIS REGARD –
DOCUMENTS COMPLETE OTHERWISE – TAX OF PUNJAB STATE NOT INVOLVED – FORM VAT
XXXVI NOT REQUIRED TO BE GENERATED AS CAR NOT MEANT FOR SALE – CHECKING OFFICER NOT
SUPPOSED TO DECIDE NATURE OF TRANSACTION ON ROADSIDE ASSUMING POWER OF ASSESSING
AUTHORITY – CAR NOT TO BE TREATED AS GOODS VEHICLE AS IT WAS NOT CARRYING ANY GOODS
AND IF TREATED ITSELF AS GOODS, IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY REQUIRED DOCUMENTS – PENALTY
IMPOSED ON SURMISES – PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED –S 51(2), 51(4) , 51(6) , 51(7) OF
PVAT ACT, 2005 - SHIVANSH MOTORS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 444
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – STOCK TRANSFER –
GOODS SENT FROM HEAD OFFICE AT JAMMU TO MOHALI BRANCH AS PER INVOICE – VAT XXXVI
GENERATED -SUBSEQUENTLY, GOODS TAKEN TO GURDASPUR – VEHICLE CHASED BY STAFF -
GOODS SUSPECTED TO BE MEANT FOR SALE TO ANOTHER FIRM INSTEAD OF BRANCH TRANSFER AT
MOHALI – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL- ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING
DIRECTION TO HIM BY OWNER TO DELIVER GOODS AT GURDASPUR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT -NO
INVOICE SHOWN WITH REGARD TO SALE TO THE GURDASPUR FIRM – INVOICE ISSUED BY
MANUFACTURING UNIT AT JAMMU FOUND INGENUINE – GR MANIPULATED BY THE APPELLANT –
NO TAX PAID TO STATE OF PUNJAB ON SALE OF SUCH GOODS –– OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 14
BELOW FOUND WELL FOUNDED – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX ESTABLISHED - APPEAL DISMISSED – S.
51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 450
BUILDERS
WORKS CONTRACT - DEVELOPER/BUILDER – ASSESSMENT – FLATS/ APARTMENTS / UNITS – SALE
OF – ASSESSEE DEVELOPER OF FLATS/APARTMENTS - TAX CHARGED INCLUDING VALUE OF LAND –
NOTICE SERVED ON APPELLANT AS ALLEGED BY DEPARTMENT - WRIT FILED CONTENDING
IMPOSITION OF TAX NOT VALID THERE BEING NO MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF TAX AND IT
BEING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY – QUESTION OF LIMITATION REGARDING PROCEEDINGS
TAKEN UP – HELD: IN VIEW OF AN EARLIER JUDGMENT WHERE THE SAME ISSUE IS ALREADY
ADJUDICATED THE MATTER SENT TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY- PETITIONER AT LIBERTY TO AGITATE
POINT OF LIMITATION ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO SHALL PASS A SPEAKING
ORDER – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S. 2 (1) (zg) OF HVAT ACT, R. 25(2) OF HVAT RULES - SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 254
BURDEN OF PROOF
SALE TO REGISTERED DEALER – BURDEN OF PROOF – DECLARATION FORM ST XXII –DEMAND
RAISED AFTER FIVE YEARS OF ASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF INGENUINE ST XXII FORMS – MATTER
REMITTED BY TRIBUNAL FOR REASSESSMENT AND DETAILED ENQUIRY BY DEPARTMENT – DEMAND
RAISED AGAIN FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND DENIAL BY PURCHASER OR NON
APPEARANCE BY THEM –SELLING DEALER CONTENDED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF
PROOF - SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: ONCE FORMS SUBMITTED ONUS STANDS
SHIFTED UPON DEPARTMENT - INABILITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS DUE TO LONG GAP NOT TO BE
COUNTED AGAINST APPELLANT – FORMS WITH MERE ABSENCE OF SIGNATURES OF ISSUING
AUTHORITY BUT BEARING GOVERNMENT SEAL CONSIDERED LEGAL – DENIAL BY PURCHASERS
REGARDING ISSUING OF SAID FORMS IMMATERIAL AS APPELLANT NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS
EXAMINE HIM - DEPARTMENT IN POSSESSION OF WHOLE RECORD THEREBY MEANING ONUS SHIFTED
ON DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THEIR CASE – APPEAL ACCEPTED ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS AS PER
ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED – S.5(2)(a)(ii) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PATIALA AUTO ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF PUNJAB 376
CEMENT MIX
EXCISE DUTY – CEMENT MIX – READY MIX CEMENT – EXEMPTION – COMPANY MANUFACTURING
CONCRETE MIX AT SITE FOR OWN USE –NO EXCISE DUTY PAID ASSUMING IT TO BE EXEMPTED
UNDER THE NOTIFICATION - EXCISE DUTY DEMANDED CONSIDERING IT TO BE A DIFFERENT
PRODUCT I.E. READY MIX CONCRETE AND NOT CONCRETE MIX –DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT THE PRODUCT IS RMC AS IT IS THE PROCESS OF
MIXING WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE TWO – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT CONTENDING THE TWO
PRODUCTS AS SAME AND THAT EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE ONLY WHEN RMC IS NOT
MANUFACTURED AT SITE – HELD : THE PROCESS OF MIXING THE CONCRETE DIFFERENTIATES RMC
AND CM – ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SHOWS APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT IT MANUFACTURED RMC
AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION ONLY ON BASIS OF IT BEING MANUFACTURED AT SITE – NOTIFICATION IN
QUESTION DOES NOT EXEMPT RMC BEING MANUFACTURED AND USED AT SITE- INTENTION OF
LEGISLATURE FACTUALLY DISPLAYED BY THE TWO ENTRIES CLASSIFIED SEPARATELY -CIRCULAR
ISSUED BY BOARD REFLECTED THE PROCESS AND MATERIALS ENGAGED IN MAKING RMC WHICH
OUTWEIGH THOSE USED IN CM - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO GO TO REVENUE IN CASE OF STRICT
INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATION - APPEAL DISMISSED – LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 174
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 15
CHECK POST
CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – EVASION OF TAX - F.I.R. – QUASHING OF – GOODS IN
TRANSIT APPREHENDED –ABSENCE OF BILL OR PAYMENT OF TAX – F.I.R. LODGED U/S 420 OF IPC -
PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 56(c) OF PVAT ACT – AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY PETITIONER AND GOODS
VEHICLE RELEASED THEREAFTER – QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS QUA THE SAME OFFENCE
PRAYED FOR – PETITION ALLOWED TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN THE GIVEN
CIRCUMSTANCES – S 420 I.P.C; S. 56(C) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PRERNA STRIPS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 219
PENALTY – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – CHECK POST / ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ENTRY TAX – GOODS
VEHICLE – DETENTION OF – GOODS VEHICLE DETAINED – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7) OF THE ACT
– ALONG WITH LEVY OF ENTRY TAX UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF 2015 – WRIT FILED FOR RELEASE
OF GOODS – PETITIONER DIRECTED TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE FOR RELEASE OF GOODS WHICH
WOULD NOT BE ENCASHED TILL THE QUESTION OF VIRES OF ORDINANCE 2015 IS ADJUDICATED
UPON – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S.51(7)( C)PVAT ACT, 2005; S. 7 OF PUNJAB DEVELOPMENT OF
TRADE AND COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL ORDINANCE 2015 - M.K. INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 248
PENALTY – CHECK POST – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – INGENUINE BILL – GOODS IN TRANSIT SOLD
TO FIRM B, JALANDHAR -BILL NO. 705 PRODUCED SHOWING GOODS AS „REJECTED AND RETURNED
– GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT THE GOODS WERE ORIGINALLY SUPPLIED TO
FIRM A IN HAMBRAN VIDE BILL NO 704 OF THE SAME DATE WHICH WERE REJECTED BY BUYER –
RELOADED FOR SALE TO FIRM B FROM PREMISES OF FIRM A ALONGWITH BILL 705 – SAID NOTE ON
BILL PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WRONGLY ON BILL 705 DUE TO FAULT OF EMPLOYEE
OF REJECTING FIRM – PENALTY IMPOSED AS SALE BILL FILE REFLECTED PLACE OF LOADING AS
LUDHIANA – FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVED SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHT IN
BOTH CONSIGNMENTS AND PLEA OF OVERSIGHT BY EMPLOYEE NOT CONVINCING – PENALTY
UPHELD BY HIGH COURT AS FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW NOT PERVERSE – APPEAL
DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 250
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – DECLARATION FORM
XXXVI – GOODS IN TRANSIT CHECKED- ABSENCE OF FORM XXXVI – DRIVER STATED TO HAVE
TAKEN ESCAPE ROUTE ON APPELLANT‟S DIRECTIONS TO AVOID DECLARATION AT ICC – PENALTY
IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – PLEA THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN TO AVOID TOLL TAX
NOT ACCEPTED – WITHDRAWL OF DRIVER‟S STATEMENT CONSIDERED TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT -
NO PROMPT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INDICATED MANIPULATION OF ENTRIES – NON
FURNISHING OF DECLARATION AT ICC VIEWED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – PENALTY
UPHELD – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BOMBAY INTERIOR DECORATERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 354
PENALTY – CHECK POST /ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – ESCAPE ROUTE –
GOODS (SUGAR) IN TRANSIT INTERCEPTED ON ESCAPE ROUTE – ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING
ADOPTING ESCAPE ROUTE ON OWNER‟S DIRECTION – GOODS DETAINED – ADMISSION BY
APPELLANT THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN BY DRIVER IN ORDER TO KEEP TRANSACTION OUT OF
BOOKS – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7)(c) OF THE ACT – APPEAL FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD
„SUGAR‟ BECAME TAXABLE ON JULY 24, 2012 WHICH IS BEFORE THE DATE OF DISPATCH OF GOODS
IN QUESTION – CONTENTION REGARDING APPELLANT‟S IGNORANCE OF SUGAR BEING TAXABLE NOT
ACCEPTED - MISTAKE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE – ADMISSION BY APPELLANT REGARDING TAKING OF
ESCAPE ROUTE INTENTIONALLY CONFIRMS ITS AWARENESS ABOUT SUGAR BEING EXIGIBLE TO TAX
AND CANNOT TO BE SKIPPED OVER - APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - RAMESH AND COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB 365
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 16
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING -ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – UNREGISTERED
DEALER – GOODS IN TRANSIT REACHED ICC – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED- APPELLANT FOUND TO BE
UNREGISTERED IN PUNJAB – CONSIGNMENT MENTIONED THAT REGISTRATION ALREADY APPLIED
FOR – GOODS DETAINED – FACTUALLY, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE APPLIED AND RECEIVED FEW
DAYS LATER AFTER DETENTION BUT BEFORE ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ARISING OF TAX
LIABILITY – PENALTY IMPOSED FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT REGARDING REGISTRATION
BEING APPLIED FOR BEFORE DETENTION – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MERE DISCLOSURE OF
WRONG FACT DOES NOT NEGATE HIS RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM
THE DATE THE LIABILITY AROSE- VOLUNTARY REPORTING – DOCUMENTS FOUND TO BE CORRECT –
TRANSACTION DULY STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETURNS – FORMALITIES COMPLETED BY
APPELLANT - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.51(7)(b) AND S.21 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AASRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 392
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOLD ORNAMENTS
CARRIED BY EMPLOYEES IN A BUS FROM DELHI TO PUNJAB – GOODS CHECKED BY POLICE AND
EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERS INFORMED PURSUANT THERETO – EMPLOYEES STATED AT FIRST
INSTANCE THAT GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY IN PATIALA TO A JEWELLER – GOODS DETAINED –
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – ADMISSION AT
FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY AND NON DISCLOSURE AT ICC– NO
AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY PURCHASING JEWELLER THAT GOODS NOT MEANT FOR DELIVERY TO HIM –
BILL PRODUCED NOT INDICATIVE OF GOODS BEING TAKEN FOR DISPLAY AS ALLEGED – ACCOUNT
BOOKS FOUND MANIPULATED – ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF INFORMATION AT VIRTUAL ICC –
ALL THESE FACTS INDICATIVE OF INITIAL STATEMENT MADE BY EMPLOYEES REGARDING
DELIVERY OF GOODS BEING TRUE- APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VIKAS JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 413
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOODS IN TRANSIT –
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AT ICC – GOODS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD TO FIRM C BY FIRM B ON
THE ORDER OF FIRM A - PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51 FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL – NO ENDORSEMENT OBSERVED ON BILL- ABSENCE OF NAME OF PURCHASER AND TIN
NUMBER OF SELLING DEALER – INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – PENALTY RIGHTLY LEVIED – APPEAL
DISMISSED – S.51(7)(b) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AGGARWAL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 422
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – NON GENERATION OF
e-ICC – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING STOCK TRANSFER
INVOICE AND GR – NO E-ICC PRODUCED – GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT E-
ICC NOT GENERATED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL FAULT IN OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGARDING WHICH
WRITTEN INFORMATION DULY GIVEN TO AUTHORITIES – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL- NON GENERATION OF E-ICC DUE TO TECHNICAL FAULT OF WEBSITE INDICATES
BONAFIDES AS AUTHORITIES STOOD INFORMED BY APPELLANT – GOODS NOT MEANT FOR SALE AND
WERE BEING TRANSPORTED WITHIN THE STATE – NO MENSREA TO EVADE TAX RECORDED BY
PENALIZING OFFICER– EXCISE DUTY ALREADY PAID - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.
51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VANSER METALICS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 427
PENALTY – CHECK POST / ROADSIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX –NEW CAR IN TRANSIT
APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING TEMPORARY REGISTRATION , INSURANCE
COVER, COPY INVOICE – DETENTION PRESUMING IT TO BE MEANT FOR SALE AND ABSENCE OF
GENERATION OF VAT XXXVI – PENALTY LEVIED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: NO
EVIDENCE TO SHOW CAR MEANT FOR SALE – NO ADMISSION ON PART OF DRIVER IN THIS REGARD –
DOCUMENTS COMPLETE OTHERWISE – TAX OF PUNJAB STATE NOT INVOLVED – FORM VAT
XXXVI NOT REQUIRED TO BE GENERATED AS CAR NOT MEANT FOR SALE – CHECKING OFFICER NOT
SUPPOSED TO DECIDE NATURE OF TRANSACTION ON ROADSIDE ASSUMING POWER OF ASSESSING
AUTHORITY – CAR NOT TO BE TREATED AS GOODS VEHICLE AS IT WAS NOT CARRYING ANY GOODS
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 17
AND IF TREATED ITSELF AS GOODS, IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY REQUIRED DOCUMENTS – PENALTY
IMPOSED ON SURMISES – PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED –S 51(2), 51(4) , 51(6) , 51(7) OF
PVAT ACT, 2005 - SHIVANSH MOTORS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 444
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – STOCK TRANSFER –
GOODS SENT FROM HEAD OFFICE AT JAMMU TO MOHALI BRANCH AS PER INVOICE – VAT XXXVI
GENERATED -SUBSEQUENTLY, GOODS TAKEN TO GURDASPUR – VEHICLE CHASED BY STAFF -
GOODS SUSPECTED TO BE MEANT FOR SALE TO ANOTHER FIRM INSTEAD OF BRANCH TRANSFER AT
MOHALI – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL- ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING
DIRECTION TO HIM BY OWNER TO DELIVER GOODS AT GURDASPUR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT -NO
INVOICE SHOWN WITH REGARD TO SALE TO THE GURDASPUR FIRM – INVOICE ISSUED BY
MANUFACTURING UNIT AT JAMMU FOUND INGENUINE – GR MANIPULATED BY THE APPELLANT –
NO TAX PAID TO STATE OF PUNJAB ON SALE OF SUCH GOODS –– OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES
BELOW FOUND WELL FOUNDED – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX ESTABLISHED - APPEAL DISMISSED – S.
51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 450
CLANDESTINE REMOVAL
CLANDESTINE REMOVAL- EXCISE DUTY- SEARCH AT FACTORY PREMISES – SHORTAGE OF STOCK
ADMITTED BY APPELLANT -CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS CONCLUDED AND DEMAND RAISED –
ORDER OF ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER AS NO EVIDENCE FOUND
CONCLUDING CLANDESTINE REMOVAL – LACK OF ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD – RECORD OF ASSESEE
NOT SCRUTINIZED – METHOD OF STOCK POSITION VERIFICATION DOUBTED – BENEFIT OF DOUBT
EXTENDED BY COMMISSIONER TO ASSESSEE – ORDER UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT
NO INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF BUYERS OR SUPPLIERS OF RAW
MATERIAL TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION – NO PERVERSITY FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY HIGH
COURT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 11A AND 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT; RULE 25 OF
CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002; RULE 15 OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS ANAND FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS 332
CLARIFICATORY
EXIM POLICY – AMENDMENT – WHETHER CLARIFICATORY - EXCLUSION OF SALES MADE BY ONE
STATUS HOLDER TO ANOTHER – HELD CLARIFICATORY – EXCLUSION OF SALE BY NON-STATUS
HOLDER TO STATUS HOLDER FOR CALCULATING THE VALUE OF EXPORT FOR INCREMENTAL
GROWTH – ALSO HELD CLARIFICATORY – SAME BENEFIT BEING ALREADY AVAILABLE TO
SEZ/EOU/EHTP/STP – AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY TO EXCLUDE DOUBLE BENEFIT – HELD
CLARIFICATORY - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90
CLUB
CLUB – SALE – LEVY OF SALE TAX ON FOOD AND DRINKS – DEMAND RAISED AGAINST ASSESSEE
CLUB ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF FOOD AND DRINKS TO NON MEMBERS – APPEALS DISMISSED BY
AUTHORITIES – APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT CONTENDING ONUS ON DEPARTMENT TO PROVE
FACILITIES BEING GIVEN TO NONMEMBERS AS ALLEGED –MATTER REMANDED TO ASSESSING
AUTHORITY TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER FINDING WHETHER ITEMS SUPPLIED TO ITS
MEMBERS OR NONMEMBERS AND THEIR EXIGIBILITY TO TAX – APPEAL DISPOSED OF- S.2(1)(ze) - CENTRAL PHOENIX CLUB VS STATE OF HARYANA 309
CLUBBING OF TWO UNITS FOR ESTIMATING CLEARANCE
EXCISE DUTY – SSI EXEMPTION –CLUBBING OF TWO UNITS FOR ESTIMATING CLEARANCES-
FACTORY PREMISES OF FIRM A SEARCHED - CONCLUSION DRAWN REGARDING FIRM A AND
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 18
APPELLANT FIRM HAVING JOINTLY CROSSED THE DUTY EXEMPTION LIMIT AVAILABLE TO SSI UNITS
– DEMAND RAISED AGAINST BOTH RESPONDENT UNITS BY CLUBBING THEIR CLEARANCES – ORDER
SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT UNLESS APPELLANT UNIT WAS PROVED TO BE A
DUMMY UNIT, CLUBBING OF CLEARANCES NOT PERMITTED – APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE
TRIBUNAL DISMISSED HOLDING THAT TWO UNITS WERE SEPARATE - APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT
ALLEGING TWO UNITS IN QUESTION TO BE ONE ON THE BASIS OF HAVING COMMON RAW MATERIAL,
TELEPHONE, ELECTRICITY CONNECTION, ACCOUNTANT OFFICE - HELD : FINDINGS BY
COMMISSIONER AND TRIBUNAL BASED ON FACTS AND NOT SHOWN PERVERSE BY REVENUE-
APPEAL DISMISSED - S. 6 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944; R. 9 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
RULES, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS SARON MECHANICAL WORKS 345
COLD ROLLING
COLD ROLLING – PROCESS OF – MANUFACTURE - EXCISE DUTY- COLD -ROLLING OF HOT- ROLLED
STAINLESS STEEL PATTIS TAKEN UP ON JOB WORK – EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID- DEMAND RAISED
CONSIDERING IT AS „MANUFACTURING‟ PROCESS‟- ORDER UPHELD BY COMMISSIONER REFERRING
TO HSN EXPLANATORY NOTES CONTENDING THAT SUCH PROCESS BRINGS ABOUT DISTINCT
CHARACTERISTICS, USE, IDENTITY AND NAME THEREBY RENDERING IT AS A NEW COMMODITY AND
CAPABLE OF BEING MARKETED– ORDER CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL AS THE PROCESS HARDENS THE
PRODUCT ENTAILING IT NEW CHARACTERISTICS – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – BASED ON
THE VIEW GIVEN BY TRIBUNAL, PROCESS IN QUESTION HELD TO BE A MANUFACTURING PROCESS U/S
2(f) OF THE ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED - S.2(f)(i) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - GUJARAT INDUSTRIES & ORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I 208
COMMISSIONER
REASSESSMENT – COMMISSIONER -NON SPEAKING ORDER – PERMISSION BY COMMISSIONER –
LETTER MENTIONING GROUNDS OF REASSESSMENT SENT TO COMMISSIONER BY OFFICER - ORDER
PASSED BY COMMISSIONER GRANTING PERMISSION FOR REASSESSMENT – CHALLENGE TO ORDER SO
PASSED ON GROUNDS OF BEING NON SPEAKING – HELD:ORDER PASSED REFLECTS AS GROUNDS
BEING APPROVED AFTER CONSIDERATION THEREBY GRANTING PERMISSION FOR AMENDMENT –
REQUIREMENT OF DETAILED ORDER NOT THERE IN VIEW OF S.29(7) OF THE ACT – READING OF
LETTER SENT BY OFFICER ALONGWITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE
ORDER IS PASSED AFTER WELL CONSIDERATION OF GROUNDS AND PERMISSION IS DULY GRANTED –
ORDER CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON SPEAKING – APPEAL IS DISMISSED- S. 29(7) OF PVAT ACT,
2005 - JALANDHAR ENGINEERING CO. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 424
CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
WRIT - DELAY AND LACHES – CONCEALMENT OF FACTS – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL
GRANTING EIGHT WEEKS TIME FOR PREDEPOSIT – WRIT FILED AGAINST THE ORDER – WRIT
DISMISSED GRANTING A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH TO MAKE PREDEPOSIT- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE DIRECTION RESULTING IN DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – FOUR YEARS
SUBSEQUENT TO DISMISSAL , WRIT FILED AGAIN SEEKING SAME RELIEF CONCEALING THE FACTUM
OF PREVIOUS WRIT FILED ON SAME GROUNDS – PRESENT WRIT PETITION DISMISSED FOR
CONCEALMENT OF FACTUM OF FILING OF WRIT PREVIOUSLY - PETITIONER DENIED ANY RELIEF
UNDER THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION THEREBY – ARTICLE 226/227 OF INDIAN
CONSTITUTION - GILAN INTEL CABLES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER 335
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 19
CONDONATION OF DELAY
LIMITATION – APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY – DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY STATE –
FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT PASSED BY APEX COURT, HELD; MERELY BECAUSE DELAY IS BY STATE,
DELAY NOT TO BE CONDONED IN ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE – APPEAL DISMISSED ON GROUNDS
OF LIMITATION- S.5 OF LIMITATION ACT - STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES 315
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF APPELLANT - DISMISSAL OF FIRST APPEAL ON
31/5/2011 – FILING OF APPEAL AFTER MORE THAN THREE YEARS – CONDONATION SOUGHT ON
BASIS OF ALLEGED INJURY AND HEALTH PROBLEM OF APPELLANT IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS – HELD
NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PRODUCED TO SHOW ALLEGED ILLNESS – CASUAL APPROACH ON PART
OF APPELLANT – EXPLANATION TENDERED IS NOT REASONABLE AND GENUINE – APPEAL DISMISSED
– S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SATPAL SURINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB 385
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED –
PENALTY IMPOSED BY AETC– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR DELAYED FILING – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL – CONTENTION RAISED THAT DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO SERIOUS ILLNESS OF
APPELLANT‟S ADVOCATE FOLLOWED BY HIS DEATH – HELD APPELLANT ALWAYS FOUND GUILTY OF
WILFUL NEGLECT – ENTRY TAX NOT PAID - NON APPEARANCE BEFORE PENALIZING OFFICER
DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES OBSERVED – NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS – NO EFFORT
MADE TO FILE APPEAL INSPITE OF THE KNOWING FULLY ABOUT ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – APPEAL
FILED TWO MONTHS POST EXPIRY OF COUNSEL - CASUAL APPROACH TAKEN TO GAIN TIME –
ADMISSION REGARDING NOT INFORMING AT ICC TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – DELAY NOT CONDONED -
APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BHAWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 389
APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – LIMITATION – COPY OF PENALTY ORDER RECEIVED WITHIN
TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF ORDER - FIRST APPEAL DISMISSED DUE TO DELAY OF 370 DAYS IN
FILING – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT COPY OF ORDER LOST BY
COUNSEL‟S EMPLOYEE – FINALLY APPEAL FILED AFTER COPY WAS RECOVERED DURING
RENOVATION – EXPLANATION APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT – COPY OF ORDER COULD HAVE
BEEN RECOVERED FROM ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN CASE OF LOSS OF PREVIOUS ONE – NO AFFIDAVIT
OF EMPLOYEE OF ADVOCATE GIVEN BY APPELLANT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT,
2005 - ITC LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB 430
DECLARATION FORMS
ASSESSMENT - DECLARATION FORMS – WHETHER PRODUCTION AT APPELLATE STAGE
PERMISSIBLE – ASSESSMENT FRAMED RAISING DEMAND – APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIGH COURT
SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE THE REQUIRED DECLARATION FORMS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
– PERMISSION TO PRODUCE THE FORMS BEFORE ASSESSING AUTHORITY GRANTED IN VIEW OF AN
EARLIER JUDGMENT – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – RULE 28B OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA 272
E -RETURNS - DECLARATION FORMS - INACTION ON PART OF DEPARTMENT – FORMS VAT R-6 AND
VAT R-8 GIVEN ON OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR FILING OF RETURNS – WEBSITE PERMITTING PAYMENT
OF TAX @ 5.25% FOR LUMPSUM WORKS CONTRACTOR BEING A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE –
REPRESENTATION FILED FOR DELETION OF THIS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT – NO RESPONSE GIVEN
BY RESPONDENT- WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE REPRESENTATION WITHIN
THE TIME SPECIFIED- WRIT DISPOSED OF - TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, HISAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 326
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – DECLARATION FORM
XXXVI – GOODS IN TRANSIT CHECKED- ABSENCE OF FORM XXXVI – DRIVER STATED TO HAVE
TAKEN ESCAPE ROUTE ON APPELLANT‟S DIRECTIONS TO AVOID DECLARATION AT ICC – PENALTY
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 20
IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – PLEA THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN TO AVOID TOLL TAX
NOT ACCEPTED – WITHDRAWL OF DRIVER‟S STATEMENT CONSIDERED TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT -
NO PROMPT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INDICATED MANIPULATION OF ENTRIES – NON
FURNISHING OF DECLARATION AT ICC VIEWED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – PENALTY
UPHELD – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BOMBAY INTERIOR DECORATERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 354
SALE TO REGISTERED DEALER – BURDEN OF PROOF – DECLARATION FORM ST XXII –DEMAND
RAISED AFTER FIVE YEARS OF ASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF INGENUINE ST XXII FORMS – MATTER
REMITTED BY TRIBUNAL FOR REASSESSMENT AND DETAILED ENQUIRY BY DEPARTMENT – DEMAND
RAISED AGAIN FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND DENIAL BY PURCHASER OR NON
APPEARANCE BY THEM –SELLING DEALER CONTENDED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF
PROOF - SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: ONCE FORMS SUBMITTED ONUS STANDS
SHIFTED UPON DEPARTMENT - INABILITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS DUE TO LONG GAP NOT TO BE
COUNTED AGAINST APPELLANT – FORMS WITH MERE ABSENCE OF SIGNATURES OF ISSUING
AUTHORITY BUT BEARING GOVERNMENT SEAL CONSIDERED LEGAL – DENIAL BY PURCHASERS
REGARDING ISSUING OF SAID FORMS IMMATERIAL AS APPELLANT NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS
EXAMINE HIM - DEPARTMENT IN POSSESSION OF WHOLE RECORD THEREBY MEANING ONUS SHIFTED
ON DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THEIR CASE – APPEAL ACCEPTED ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS AS PER
ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED – S.5(2)(a)(ii) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PATIALA AUTO ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF PUNJAB 376
DELAY OF LACHES
WRIT - DELAY AND LACHES – CONCEALMENT OF FACTS – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL
GRANTING EIGHT WEEKS TIME FOR PREDEPOSIT – WRIT FILED AGAINST THE ORDER – WRIT
DISMISSED GRANTING A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH TO MAKE PREDEPOSIT- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE DIRECTION RESULTING IN DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – FOUR YEARS
SUBSEQUENT TO DISMISSAL , WRIT FILED AGAIN SEEKING SAME RELIEF CONCEALING THE FACTUM
OF PREVIOUS WRIT FILED ON SAME GROUNDS – PRESENT WRIT PETITION DISMISSED FOR
CONCEALMENT OF FACTUM OF FILING OF WRIT PREVIOUSLY - PETITIONER DENIED ANY RELIEF
UNDER THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION THEREBY – ARTICLE 226/227 OF INDIAN
CONSTITUTION - GILAN INTEL CABLES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER 335
DEVELOPER
WORKS CONTRACT - DEVELOPER/BUILDER – ASSESSMENT – FLATS/ APARTMENTS / UNITS – SALE
OF – ASSESSEE DEVELOPER OF FLATS/APARTMENTS - TAX CHARGED INCLUDING VALUE OF LAND –
NOTICE SERVED ON APPELLANT AS ALLEGED BY DEPARTMENT - WRIT FILED CONTENDING
IMPOSITION OF TAX NOT VALID THERE BEING NO MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF TAX AND IT
BEING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY – QUESTION OF LIMITATION REGARDING PROCEEDINGS
TAKEN UP – HELD: IN VIEW OF AN EARLIER JUDGMENT WHERE THE SAME ISSUE IS ALREADY
ADJUDICATED THE MATTER SENT TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY- PETITIONER AT LIBERTY TO AGITATE
POINT OF LIMITATION ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO SHALL PASS A SPEAKING
ORDER – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S. 2 (1) (zg) OF HVAT ACT, R. 25(2) OF HVAT RULES - SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 254
e-ICC
PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – NON GENERATION OF
e-ICC – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING STOCK TRANSFER
INVOICE AND GR – NO E-ICC PRODUCED – GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT E-
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 21
ICC NOT GENERATED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL FAULT IN OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGARDING WHICH
WRITTEN INFORMATION DULY GIVEN TO AUTHORITIES – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL- NON GENERATION OF E-ICC DUE TO TECHNICAL FAULT OF WEBSITE INDICATES
BONAFIDES AS AUTHORITIES STOOD INFORMED BY APPELLANT – GOODS NOT MEANT FOR SALE AND
WERE BEING TRANSPORTED WITHIN THE STATE – NO MENSREA TO EVADE TAX RECORDED BY
PENALIZING OFFICER– EXCISE DUTY ALREADY PAID - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.
51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VANSER METALICS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 427
ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE
ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE – POTATO CHIPS – PROCESSED VEGETABLES – MANUFACTURING OF POTATO
CHIPS AND PROCESSED COMMODITIES- TAX PAID @ 4% FROM 1.4.2005 TO 31.10.2007
CONSIDERING THE ITEM TO BE FALLING UNDER SCHEDULE B- ASSESSING AUTHORITY CHARGED
TAX @ 12.5 % HOLDING IT AS FALLING UNDER SCHEDULE F – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL
DISMISSED HOLDING SUCH ITEM TO BE BEYOND ENTRY 88 OF SCHEDULE B IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT
DATED 31.10.2007 – ON APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT, HELD THAT POTATO CHIPS INCLUDED IN
SCHEDULE B PRIOR TO SAID AMENDMENT – EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE B POST AMENDMENT –
COMMODITY TO BE TAXED UNDER SCHEDULE B @ 4% FOR THE PERIOD BEFORE AMENDMENT –
APPEAL ACCEPTED- SCHEDULE B, ENTRY 88 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 240
ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE – MOBILE CHARGERS - WHETHER PART OF CELL PHONES – HELD: NO –
MOBILE CHARGERS SOLD IN A COMPOSITE PACK ALONG WITH THE CELL PHONES ARE ACCESSORIES
AND NOT PART OF CELLPHONES- TO BE TAXED UNDER SCHEDULE F INSTEAD OF SCHEDULE B OF
THE PVAT ACT – JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT FOLLOWED- PETITION DISMISSED – ENTRY 60(6) (g)
OF SCHEDULE B AND SCHEDULE F OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 281
ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE – INSECTICIDES/ PESTICIDES – COMPANY MANUFACTURING CONCENTRATED
FORM OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS – CLARIFICATION SOUGHT PLEADING SUCH CHEMICALS ARE
PESTICIDES AND WEEDICIDES TO BE COVERED UNDER ENTRY 38B OF THE SCHEDULE – CONTENTION
RAISED BY STATE THAT SUCH CHEMICAL HAS TO BE IN A MARKETABLE STATE TO BE DIRECTLY USED
FOR PLANTS TO QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION – ANSWER GIVEN AGAINST APPLICANT - APPEAL BEFORE
TRIBUNAL – HELD: GOODS IN QUESTION ARE TECHNICAL GRADES IN CONCENTRATED FORM AND
AFTER DILUTION BY ADDING INERTS ARE USED FOR PLANTS AND ARE COVERED UNDER THE SAID
ENTRY – APPEAL BY STATE CONTENDING THAT ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND NOT DIRECTLY
SELLING FINAL PRODUCTS AND THUS GOODS IN QUESTION BEING INTERMEDIATE GOODS DO NOT
QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION - HELD: OBSERVATION OF TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT – SAID GOODS FALL
UNDER ENTRY 38B OF SCHEDULE B OF HVAT ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED ON MERITS - ENTRY 38B
OF SCHEDULE B OF HVAT ACT - STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES 315
ENTRY TAX
PENALTY – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – CHECK POST / ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ENTRY TAX – GOODS
VEHICLE – DETENTION OF – GOODS VEHICLE DETAINED – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7) OF THE ACT
– ALONG WITH LEVY OF ENTRY TAX UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF 2015 – WRIT FILED FOR RELEASE
OF GOODS – PETITIONER DIRECTED TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE FOR RELEASE OF GOODS WHICH
WOULD NOT BE ENCASHED TILL THE QUESTION OF VIRES OF ORDINANCE 2015 IS ADJUDICATED
UPON – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S.51(7)( C)PVAT ACT, 2005; S. 7 OF PUNJAB DEVELOPMENT OF
TRADE AND COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL ORDINANCE 2015 - M.K. INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 248
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 22
e-RETURNS
E -RETURNS - DECLARATION FORMS - INACTION ON PART OF DEPARTMENT – FORMS VAT R-6 AND
VAT R-8 GIVEN ON OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR FILING OF RETURNS – WEBSITE PERMITTING PAYMENT
OF TAX @ 5.25% FOR LUMPSUM WORKS CONTRACTOR BEING A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE –
REPRESENTATION FILED FOR DELETION OF THIS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT – NO RESPONSE GIVEN
BY RESPONDENT- WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE REPRESENTATION WITHIN
THE TIME SPECIFIED- WRIT DISPOSED OF - TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, HISAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 326
ESCAPE ROUTE
PENALTY – CHECK POST /ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – ESCAPE ROUTE –
GOODS (SUGAR) IN TRANSIT INTERCEPTED ON ESCAPE ROUTE – ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING
ADOPTING ESCAPE ROUTE ON OWNER‟S DIRECTION – GOODS DETAINED – ADMISSION BY
APPELLANT THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN BY DRIVER IN ORDER TO KEEP TRANSACTION OUT OF
BOOKS – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7)(c) OF THE ACT – APPEAL FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD
„SUGAR‟ BECAME TAXABLE ON JULY 24, 2012 WHICH IS BEFORE THE DATE OF DISPATCH OF GOODS
IN QUESTION – CONTENTION REGARDING APPELLANT‟S IGNORANCE OF SUGAR BEING TAXABLE NOT
ACCEPTED - MISTAKE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE – ADMISSION BY APPELLANT REGARDING TAKING OF
ESCAPE ROUTE INTENTIONALLY CONFIRMS ITS AWARENESS ABOUT SUGAR BEING EXIGIBLE TO TAX
AND CANNOT TO BE SKIPPED OVER - APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - RAMESH AND COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB 365
EVASION OF TAX
CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – EVASION OF TAX - F.I.R. – QUASHING OF – GOODS IN
TRANSIT APPREHENDED –ABSENCE OF BILL OR PAYMENT OF TAX – F.I.R. LODGED U/S 420 OF IPC -
PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 56(c) OF PVAT ACT – AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY PETITIONER AND GOODS
VEHICLE RELEASED THEREAFTER – QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS QUA THE SAME OFFENCE
PRAYED FOR – PETITION ALLOWED TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN THE GIVEN
CIRCUMSTANCES – S 420 I.P.C; S. 56(C) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PRERNA STRIPS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 219
EXCISE DUTY
EXCISE DUTY – MANUFACTURE – GI PAPER – WHETHER PRINTING PROCESS ON GI PAPER
CONSIDERED „MANUFACTURING‟ - DUTY PAID GI PAPER USED FOR WRAPPING PURCHASED FOR
PRINTING – PRINTING PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY APPELLANT AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OF
CUSTOMERS/ COMPANIES LIKE PRINTING OF LOGO AND NAME- EXCISE DUTY DEMANDED BY
AUTHORITY TERMING SUCH PRINTING PROCESS AS „MANUFACTURE‟ U/S 2(F) OF THE CENTRAL
EXCISE ACT, 1944 – APPEAL ACCEPTED BY TRIBUNAL HOLDING PRINTING PROCESS AS BEING
INCIDENTAL NOT CHANGING PRIMARY USE OF THE PRODUCT – APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE
SUPREME COURT – HELD: –TEST OF „NO COMMERCIAL USER WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESS‟ APPLIED
- END USE AFTER PRINTING CONFINED TO ONLY THAT PARTICULAR AND SPECIFIC PRODUCT OF THE
SAID CUSTOMER AND NOT GENERAL CUSTOMER - PRINTING NOT MERELY A VALUE ADDITION BUT
TRANSFORMATION FROM GENERAL WRAPPING TO SPECIAL WRAPPING PAPER, THEREBY CHANGING
THE END USE IN PRESENT CASE – TRANSFORMATION OF ARTICLE AND SUBSEQUENT BRINGING OF
DISTINCTIVE USE OF THE ARTICLE BROUGHT ABOUT BRINGING THE PROCESS UNDER THE DEFINITION
OF „MANUFACTURE‟- APPEAL ACCEPTED - S. 2(f) OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV VS FITRITE PACKERS 84
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 23
REBATE - EXCISE DUTY – EXPORT GOODS - SCOPE OF RULE 18 – EXCISE DUTY PAID ON BOTH
INTERMEDIATE GOODS AND FINAL PRODUCT MEANT FOR EXPORT – REBATE CLAIMED ON BOTH
DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT REBATE ALLOWED ONLY ON ONE OF THE TWO PRODUCTS AS
PER RULE 18 – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – HELD: PREVIOUS NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED
UNDER ENABLING PROVISION OF RULE 18 PROVIDE FOR REBATE OF WHOLE OF DUTY PAID ON
EXCISABLE GOODS USED IN MANUFACTURE AS WELL AS FINAL PRODUCT EXPORTED – PURPOSE OF
ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED BY RESTRICTING RULE 18 TO PROVIDE REBATE ON ONLY ONE TYPE OF
PRODUCT – PREVIOUS NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE SAID RULE CLEARLY SHOW PROCEDURE
TO CLAIM REFUND ON BOTH TYPES OF GOODS (INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL) ON WHICH DUTY HAS
BEEN PAID – THE WORD „OR‟ IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS „AND‟ IN RULE 18 AND REBATE IS TO BE
ALLOWED ON BOTH EXCISABLE GOODS MEANT FOR EXPORT – APPEAL ACCEPTED – RULE 18 AND 19
OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. 161
EXCISE DUTY – CEMENT MIX – READY MIX CEMENT – EXEMPTION – COMPANY MANUFACTURING
CONCRETE MIX AT SITE FOR OWN USE –NO EXCISE DUTY PAID ASSUMING IT TO BE EXEMPTED
UNDER THE NOTIFICATION - EXCISE DUTY DEMANDED CONSIDERING IT TO BE A DIFFERENT
PRODUCT I.E. READY MIX CONCRETE AND NOT CONCRETE MIX –DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT THE PRODUCT IS RMC AS IT IS THE PROCESS OF
MIXING WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE TWO – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT CONTENDING THE TWO
PRODUCTS AS SAME AND THAT EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE ONLY WHEN RMC IS NOT
MANUFACTURED AT SITE – HELD : THE PROCESS OF MIXING THE CONCRETE DIFFERENTIATES RMC
AND CM – ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SHOWS APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT IT MANUFACTURED RMC
AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION ONLY ON BASIS OF IT BEING MANUFACTURED AT SITE – NOTIFICATION IN
QUESTION DOES NOT EXEMPT RMC BEING MANUFACTURED AND USED AT SITE- INTENTION OF
LEGISLATURE FACTUALLY DISPLAYED BY THE TWO ENTRIES CLASSIFIED SEPARATELY -CIRCULAR
ISSUED BY BOARD REFLECTED THE PROCESS AND MATERIALS ENGAGED IN MAKING RMC WHICH
OUTWEIGH THOSE USED IN CM - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO GO TO REVENUE IN CASE OF STRICT
INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATION - APPEAL DISMISSED – LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 174
COLD ROLLING – PROCESS OF – MANUFACTURE - EXCISE DUTY- COLD -ROLLING OF HOT- ROLLED
STAINLESS STEEL PATTIS TAKEN UP ON JOB WORK – EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID- DEMAND RAISED
CONSIDERING IT AS „MANUFACTURING‟ PROCESS‟- ORDER UPHELD BY COMMISSIONER REFERRING
TO HSN EXPLANATORY NOTES CONTENDING THAT SUCH PROCESS BRINGS ABOUT DISTINCT
CHARACTERISTICS, USE, IDENTITY AND NAME THEREBY RENDERING IT AS A NEW COMMODITY AND
CAPABLE OF BEING MARKETED– ORDER CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL AS THE PROCESS HARDENS THE
PRODUCT ENTAILING IT NEW CHARACTERISTICS – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – BASED ON
THE VIEW GIVEN BY TRIBUNAL, PROCESS IN QUESTION HELD TO BE A MANUFACTURING PROCESS U/S
2(f) OF THE ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED - S.2(f)(i) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - GUJARAT INDUSTRIES & ORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I 208
LIMITATION – NOTICE- EXCISE DUTY- PROCESSING ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN FOR PERIOD 1995-97 –
EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID – NOTICE SERVED DATED 15 MAY, 2000 – CONTENTION RAISED THAT
ASSESSEE UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN DID NOT AMOUNT TO
MANUFACTURE AND THAT EXCISE DUTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE – INVOKING OF S.11 A THEREBY
EXTENDING PERIOD OF LIMITATION APPEALED AGAINST – ORDER OF COMMISSIONER REFLECTED
DUE KNOWLEDGE ON PART OF APPELLANT REGARDING THE SAID ACTIVITY BEING DUTIABLE
THEREBY OBSERVING CONNIVANCE ON PART OF APPELLANT -APPEAL DISMISSED BY APEX COURT IN
VIEW OF OBSERVATION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW THEREBY VALIDATING THE SERVICE OF IMPUGNED
NOTICE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD – S.11A OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT,1994 - MANOJ KUMAR KANSAL VS STATE OF HARYANA 208
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 24
REFUND – EXCISE DUTY – LIMITATION- PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM – EXCISE DUTY PAID UNDER
MISTAKEN BELIEF – REFUND CLAIM DENIED BEING TIME BARRED – APPEALS DISMISSED – WRIT
FILED CONTENDING THAT DUTY PAID WAS UNDER MISTAKE AND SHOULD BE REFUNDED AS IT WERE
OTHERWISE RECOVERED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW – REFUND NOT VALID IN VIEW OF RULE 11
OF THE RULES AS CLAIM OUGHT TO BE FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM DATE OF
PAYMENT – NO REFUND UNDER RULE 173J ALLOWED IN VIEW OF FINDING OF TRIBUNAL
INDICATING ABSENCE OF MATERIAL SHOWING CLEARANCES BEING EFFECTED WITHIN TIME EVEN IF
ONE YEAR IS TO BE COUNTED – WRIT PETITION DISMISSED – RULE 11 AND RULE 173J OF CENTRAL
EXCISE RULES, 1944 - GUPTA STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 285
CLANDESTINE REMOVAL- EXCISE DUTY- SEARCH AT FACTORY PREMISES – SHORTAGE OF STOCK
ADMITTED BY APPELLANT -CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS CONCLUDED AND DEMAND RAISED –
ORDER OF ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER AS NO EVIDENCE FOUND
CONCLUDING CLANDESTINE REMOVAL – LACK OF ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD – RECORD OF ASSESEE
NOT SCRUTINIZED – METHOD OF STOCK POSITION VERIFICATION DOUBTED – BENEFIT OF DOUBT
EXTENDED BY COMMISSIONER TO ASSESSEE – ORDER UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT
NO INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF BUYERS OR SUPPLIERS OF RAW
MATERIAL TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION – NO PERVERSITY FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY HIGH
COURT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 11A AND 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT; RULE 25 OF
CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002; RULE 15 OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS ANAND FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS 332
EXCISE DUTY – SSI EXEMPTION –CLUBBING OF TWO UNITS FOR ESTIMATING CLEARANCES-
FACTORY PREMISES OF FIRM A SEARCHED - CONCLUSION DRAWN REGARDING FIRM A AND
APPELLANT FIRM HAVING JOINTLY CROSSED THE DUTY EXEMPTION LIMIT AVAILABLE TO SSI UNITS
– DEMAND RAISED AGAINST BOTH RESPONDENT UNITS BY CLUBBING THEIR CLEARANCES – ORDER
SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT UNLESS APPELLANT UNIT WAS PROVED TO BE A
DUMMY UNIT, CLUBBING OF CLEARANCES NOT PERMITTED – APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE
TRIBUNAL DISMISSED HOLDING THAT TWO UNITS WERE SEPARATE - APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT
ALLEGING TWO UNITS IN QUESTION TO BE ONE ON THE BASIS OF HAVING COMMON RAW MATERIAL,
TELEPHONE, ELECTRICITY CONNECTION, ACCOUNTANT OFFICE - HELD : FINDINGS BY
COMMISSIONER AND TRIBUNAL BASED ON FACTS AND NOT SHOWN PERVERSE BY REVENUE-
APPEAL DISMISSED - S. 6 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944; R. 9 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
RULES, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS SARON MECHANICAL WORKS 345
MEDICAL AND TOILET PREPARATIONS CONTAINING LIQUOR -WHETHER EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE
UNDER THE ACT OF 1944 – EXCISE DUTY ALREADY PAID UNDER THE MEDICINAL AND TOILET
PREPARATIONS (EXCISE DUTY) ACT, 1955 - DEMAND RAISED UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT,
1944 DESPITE EXEMPTION BEING GRANTED ON SAID GOODS – WRIT FILED CONTENDING PAYING
EXCISE DUTY UNDER THE ACT OF 1944 WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION – MATTER
REMANDED TO DECIDE AFRESH CONSIDERING THE POINT OF DOUBLE TAXATION - MEDICINAL AND
TOILET PREPARATIONS (EXCISE DUTY) ACT, 1955 - JBJ PERFUMES PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 351
EXERCISE OF POWER BY OFFICER OF SAME RANK AS
ASSESSING OFFICER
REVISION – REVISIONAL AUTHORITY – EXERCISE OF POWER BY OFFICER OF SAME RANK AS
ASSESSING OFFICER – ASSESSMENT FRAMED – NOTICE FOR REVISION ISSUED BY OFFICER OF SAME
RANK AS OFFICER HAVING DONE ASSESSMENT IN INSTANT CASE – WRIT FILED- HELD: POWER OF
REVISION NOT TO BE EXERCISED BY OFFICER OF SAME RANK – NOTICES SET ASIDE – LIBERTY
GRANTED TO STATE TO PROCEED AFRESH U/S 40 – S.40(2) OF HGST ACT, 1973 - PRAKASH PIPES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 269
-
SGA LAW – 2015 Q4
(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 25
EXEMPTION
EXCISE DUTY – CEMENT MIX – READY MIX CEMENT – EXEMPTION – COMPANY MANUFACTURING
CONCRETE MIX AT SITE FOR OWN USE –NO EXCISE DUTY PAID ASSUMING IT TO BE EXEMPTED
UNDER THE NOTIFICATION - EXCISE DUTY DEMANDED CONSIDERING IT TO BE A DIFFERENT
PRODUCT I.E. READY MIX CONCRETE AND NOT CONCRETE MIX –DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT THE PRODUCT IS RMC AS IT IS THE PROCESS OF
MIXING WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE TWO – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT CONTENDING THE TWO
PRODUCTS AS SAME AND THAT EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE ONLY WHEN RMC IS NOT
MANUFACTURED AT SITE – HELD : THE PROCESS OF MIXING THE CONCRETE DIFFERENTIATES RMC
AND CM – ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SHOWS APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT IT MANUFACTURED RMC
AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION ONLY ON BASIS OF IT BEING MANUFACTURED AT SITE – NOTIFICATION IN
QUESTION DOES NOT EXEMPT RMC BEING MANUFACTURED AND USED AT SITE- INTENTION OF
LEGISLATURE FACTUALLY DISPLAYED BY THE TWO ENTRIES CLASSIFIED SEPARATELY -CIRCULAR
ISSUED BY BOARD REFLECTED THE PROCESS AND MATERIALS ENGAGED IN MAKING RMC WHICH
OUTWEIGH THOSE USED IN CM - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO GO TO REVENUE IN CASE OF STRICT
INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATION - APPEAL DISMISSED – LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 174
ADVANCE TAX – EXEMPTION – APPLICATION FILED FOR RENEWAL – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM
RESPONDENT - WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER DECIDING
THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY PETITIONER WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED – S.6(7) OF PVAT ACT,
2005 - SHAKTI MITTAL CONTRACTOR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHER 221
EXEMPTION – EXEMPTED UNIT – WHETHER PURCHASE TAX IS ADJUSTABLE AGAINST THE NOTIONAL
TAX LIABILITY – EXEMPTED UNIT – RETURNS FILED – DISALLOWANCE OF ADJUSTMENT OF
PURCHASE TAX AGAINST THE NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY BY REVISIONAL AUTHORITY – ORDER
UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL – APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT – HELD: BENEFICIARY UNIT IS ENTITLED TO
EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF SALES TAX ON SALE OF FINISHED PRODUCTS AND NOT EXEMPTED
FROM PAYMENT OF PURCHASE TAX IN TERMS OF RULE 28B(3)(j) OF THE HGST RULES- NO
PERVERSITY FOUND IN ORDER OF TRIBUNAL – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – RULE 28B(3)(j) - RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA 272
ASSESSMENT – EXEMPTION – EXEMPTED UNIT – EXPORT – EXPORT UNIT ENJOYING EXEMPTION-
RICE EXPORTED OUT OF PADDY PURCHASED- ANNUAL STATEMENT FILED - LEVY OF PURCHASE TAX
ON PADDY BY ASSESSING AUTHORITY – DISALLOWANCE OF ITC ON ONE HAND AND REVERSAL OF
ITC ON OTHER HAND – APPEAL DISMISSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT PASSING
SPEAKING ORDER – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MATTER REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING
AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER – S.13, S.19 OF
PVAT ACT, 2005 - KATARIA RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 419
EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE
EXEMPTED UNIT - EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE – AMALGAMATION – AMALGAMATION OF TWO
EXISTING EXEMPTED UNITS AS PER AMALGAMATION SCHEME – LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO
TRANSFER BENEFITS OF THE OTHER COMPANY TO ITS COMPANY U/R 28B OF HGST RULES IN VIEW
OF AMALGAMATION – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED – WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO TAKE A
DECISION ON THE LETTERS SENT BY THE PETITIONER REGARDING ISSUANCE OF AMENDED
ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE WITHIN THE PERIOD SO SPECIFIED – WRIT DISPOSED OF - RULE 28B (10-
C)OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RISHAB FARMS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 257