news round up - Taxmann

ii Contents
SUBJECT INDEX
APPEAL
- PERIOD OF LIMITATION - In case of assessee, assessment order was passed on 27-10-
2004 - Assessee’s case was that said order was served on it only on 18-11-2004 -
Thereupon, assessee filed appeal on 17-1-2005 - Since there was delay of 27 days in
filing appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed - Said application was
kept pending for around 3½ years and thereafter it was rejected on ground that
assessment order was served on 27-10-2004 itself and, thus, there was a delay of 52
days which was beyond condonable period - On instant petition, it was seen from
records that in acknowledgement, dated 27-10-2004, name and designation of
person receiving copy of assessment order were not available and, further said
acknowledgement did not bear seal of assessee-company - It was also noticed that
there was no endorsement by person who delivered notice of order as required by
Explanation to rule 52(1) - Whether, in aforesaid circumstances, it could be concluded
that order of assessment was served upon assessee only on 18-11-2004 - Held,
yes - Whether, further, in view of fact that appeal papers were already pending before
first respondent for more than 3½ years, it was to be held that it was a fit case where
delay was to be condoned and matter was to be directed to be heard on merits - Held,
yes [Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Act, 1959, read with Rule 52 of
the Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Rules, 1952] - Maruthi Estate v. Appellate Dy.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Mad.) 235
CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS
- CHILLIES - Assessee was engaged in extraction of chilly oleoresin from dry chillies -
Whether cut chillies, spent chillies, crushed chillies and chilly seeds remaining after
extraction of chilly oleoresin from dry chillies is a spice by itself, which can be sold
and traded in common parlance - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, above goods would
fall under entry No. 61 of Third Schedule to Act under definition of ‘dry chillies’ - Held,
yes [Section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003] - Tropical Flavours (P.)
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (Kar.) 210
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 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] - Vysya Bank Ltd.
v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP (All.) 257
INTER-STATE PURCHASE
- CHARGE OF TAX - Assessment year 1998-99 - Assessee claimed to be a commission
agent for inter-State purchase and sale of agricultural produce - Revenue authorities
did not accept said claim because there was neither any written contract or
appointment agreement between parties nor were there addresses of farmers -
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 4