news round up - Taxmann

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
2010] Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax (All.) 259 A B C D E F G at Delhi. Merely because the stamp paper was purchased at Delhi, it could not be presumed that the lease deed was also executed at Delhi on 29-9- 1995. Moreover, even assuming that the lease deed was executed at Delhi, it did not make any difference. Clause (ii) of Explanation I to section 2(h) says that sale is deemed to have taken place within the State of U.P., if the goods are used by the lessee within the State during any period, notwithstanding that the agreement for the lease has been entered into outside the State or that the goods have been delivered to lessee outside the State. Therefore, notwithstanding the agreement being executed at Delhi, since the plant and machinery had been admittedly used within the State of U.P., there was deemed sale in the State of U.P. Therefore, the trade tax authorities had jurisdiction to levy the tax on the amount of rent received under section 3F. So far as the penalty levied under section 15A(1)(a) was concerned, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal. Merely because the rent had not been received, the assessee could not be absolved from the liability to disclose such rent in the return. Sales with deferred payment are also included within the ambit of definition of sale under section 2(h). Therefore, such receipts were liable to be disclosed. [Para 8] Therefore, the revision was liable to be dismissed. [Para 9] CASES REFERRED TO 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 2436 (para 2), Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. 1998 UPTC 336 (para 5) and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Gulshan Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. 2008 UPTC 1231 (para 5). Ashok Kumar for the Appellant. JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. - The present revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 17-3-2004 for the assessment year 2000-01. Revision No. 843 of 2006 relates to the assessment and Revision No. 842 of 2006 relates to the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had entered into a contract with M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills, Dhampur for providing plant and machinery on rent and during the year under consideration received total rent of Rs. 1,16,77,320. The claim of the applicant was that stamp paper for the agreement was purchased from Delhi and on 29-9-1995 the agreement was executed at Delhi and, therefore, the right to use has been transferred at Delhi and the Trade Tax Authorities of State had no jurisdiction to levy the tax on the rent received in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement under section 3F of the Act. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 2436. The assessing authority had not accepted the plea of the applicant GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 135
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 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
114 GOODS & SERVICES TAX - MAGAZINE
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
174 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85: 208 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 136: 260 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
show all

news round up - Taxmann

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?