news round up - Taxmann

28.01.2013 Views
256 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1 through consignment which was duly received and confirmed by the consignee. The Assessing Officer levied trade tax holding said return/ consignment of the goods to be a ‘sale’. On appeal, the Assessing Officer’s view was reiterated by the Tribunal stating that the assessee failed to present copies of bilty, credit note etc., before the lower authorities for pressing its claim and, instead, the same were directly produced before the Tribunal. HELD The documents of bilty, credit note, etc., produced by the assessee-revisionist prima facie appeared to be genuine. Further, every medicine has an expiry date and, hence, the stock held by the assessee being too old, certainly might have expired and not remained fit for sale. Thus, it was to be held that no sale was made by the assessee and the goods were not subjected to tax. [Paras 7 & 8] Pradeep Agarwal for the Revisionist. Sanjai Sarin for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The present revision has been filed by assessee under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgment/order dated 2-2-2002 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Camp Lucknow for the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was having the agency of Biological E. Ltd., Hyderabad who was the manufacturer of medicines. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee-revisionist has returned the goods to the manufacturer as they were no longer interested to have the agency. The Assessing Officer has opined that this was the sale so he levied the tax which was upheld not only by the First Appellate Authority but also by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before this Court. 3. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that goods were too old and the same were despatched to Hyderabad vide G.R. No. 2610, dated 26-2-1994 by M/s. Suman Roadways and the cartage was to be paid by the consignee. The confirmation was also received from the recipient-manufacturer of the medicines. So, he said that this was not the sale, therefore, the tax cannot be levied. Lastly, he made a request that the tax may kindly be deleted. 4. On the other hand, Sri Sanjai Sarin, learned counsel for the department has justified the impugned order by stating that credit note, bilty etc. were never produced before the lower authorities. First time, it was produced before the Tribunal as appears from the order of the Tribunal. 5. I heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. 6. From the record, it appears that the assessee has returned the medicines to its manufacturer at Hyderabad. For this purpose, the learned counsel GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 132 A B C D E F G

2010] Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax (All.) 257 A B C D E F G for the revisionist has drawn my attention to the photocopy of the bilty, confirmation, credit note etc. The Tribunal has taken no cognizance of these documents by stating that it were never produced before the lower authorities for verification. Prima facie, these documents appears genuine. Matters is too old and the same cannot be verified when the said firm has already been closed. 7. Further, it may be mentioned that lower authorities has accepted in their orders that goods were too old and it was not known in which year the same were purchased. I agree with the observation. It may be mentioned that every medicine has a expiry date. If the stock was too old, certainly it might have expired and was not fit for sale. No sale was made by the assessee as appears from the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Hence, I opined that the goods were not subject to tax. Therefore, I set aside impugned order of the Tribunal including the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition. The assessee will get relief accordingly. 9. In the result, the revision filed by the revisionist is hereby allowed. [2010] 1 GST 257 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax*, UP RAJES KUMAR, J. TRADE TAX REVISION NOS. 842 AND 843 OF 2006 OCTOBER 27, 2009 DEEMED SALE - Assessment year 2000-01 - Assessee entered into an agreement with a sugar mill for providing plant and machinery on rent - It claimed that since stamp paper for agreement was purchased from Delhi and agreement was also executed at Delhi on 29-9-1995, right to use had been transferred at Delhi and, therefore, trade tax authorities of State of U.P. had no jurisdiction to levy tax on amount of rent received during previous year in pursuance of aforesaid agreement under section 3F - Lower authorities disallowed assessee’s claim - Whether in terms of *In favour of revenue. ■■ GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 133

Page 2 and 3: NEWS ROUND UP BILL FOR GST ROLLOUT

Page 4 and 5: COntents STATUTES ❑ Comments of t

Page 6 and 7: Contents iii However, in gate pass

Page 8 and 9: Contents v [Section 15A of the U.P.

Page 10 and 11: UTTAR PRADESH SALES TAX ACT, 1948 -

Page 12 and 13: 130 Goods & Services Tax - Statutes






Page 24 and 25: 114 GOODS & SERVICES TAX - MAGAZINE













Page 50 and 51: 174 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re










































Page 136: 260 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re

news

round

taxmann

taxmann.com

news round up - Taxmann

news round up - Taxmann ... View more news round up - Taxmann

Delete template?

Save as template ?

news round up - Taxmann news round up - Taxmann