news round up - Taxmann

258 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1
definition of sale as indicated in section 2(h); notwithstanding agreement
being executed at Delhi, since plant and machinery had been admittedly
used within State of U.P., there was deemed sale in State of U.P. - Held,
yes - Whether, therefore, trade tax authorities had jurisdiction to levy tax
on amount of rent received under section 3F - Held, yes [Section 2(h),
read with section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948]
PENALTY - For failure to furnish return or to deposit tax due - Assessment
year 2000-01 - Assessee had not disclosed amount of rent arising on
leasehold plant and machinery in return of fourth quarter ending on
31-3-2001 on ground that rent was not received by it and, accordingly,
did not pay due tax also - Assessing authority, for such default, levied
penalty under section 15A(1)(a) upon assessee and appellate authorities
confirmed penalty order - Whether merely because rent had not been
received, assessee could not be absolved from liability to disclose such
rent in return - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, levy of penalty upon
assessee was justified - Held, yes [Section 15A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act,
1948]
FACTS
The assessee had entered into an agreement with a sugar mill for providing
plant and machinery on rent. It claimed that since the stamp paper for
the agreement was purchased from Delhi and the agreement was also
executed at Delhi on 29-9-1995, the right to use had been transferred at
Delhi and, therefore, the trade tax authorities of the State of U.P. had no
jurisdiction to levy tax on the amount of rent received during the previous
year in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement under section 3F. The
assessing authority disallowed the claim of the assessee and levied the tax
on the amount of rent received under section 3F. Both the first appellate
authority and the Tribunal upheld the order of the assessing authority.
Further, the assessee had not disclosed the amount of rent arising on the
leasehold plant and machinery in the return of the fourth quarter ending
on 31-3-2001 on the ground that the rent was not received by it and,
accordingly, did not pay the due tax also. The assessing authority for such
default levied the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) upon the assessee. Both
the first appellate authority and the Tribunal confirmed the penalty order.
On revision :
HELD
In the instant case, the Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that,
from the perusal of the lease deed, it did not appear that the agreement had
been executed at Delhi. The finding of the Tribunal was finding of fact. The
copy of the lease deed had not been annexed along with the revision petition
and the assessee was not able to show that the lease deed had been executed
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 134
A
B
C
D
E
F
G