news round up - Taxmann

Contents iii
However, in gate pass of Mandi Samiti, quantity of goods was mentioned - Assessee
also maintained builty and dispatch numbers evidencing transport, wherein address
of recipient was also available - Whether, in age of electronic era, no formal contract
is required and a telephonic contract is sufficient and, therefore, on facts of instant
case, it was to be held that assessee was a commission agent making purchases for
ex-U.P. principals - Held, yes [Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948] -
Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow v. K.S. Trading Co. (All.) 193
MANUFACTURE
- Assessment year 1989-90 - Assessee was engaged in business of manufacture and
sale of hard coke - It claimed that manufactured hard coke was not liable to tax
because it was manufactured out of tax paid coal and both coal and hard coke were
same commodities - Hard coke was manufactured by assessee after processing of
coal breeze and it was commercially known as a different commodity than coal/coal
breeze - Whether since process involved in converting coal into hard coke was
process of ‘manufacturing’ within ambit of section 2(ee), assessee was liable to pay
tax on sale of hard coke being manufacturer of same - Held, yes [Section 2(e-1) read
with section 2(ee) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948] - Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v.
Ramco Coke Industries (All.) 196
- Assessment year 1981-82 - Assessee carried on business of purchasing and selling of
scooters, their parts, etc. - It had purchased chassis of scooters against Form 3A and
later put body fabricated over it and sold same as tempo to customers - Assessing
Officer opined that tempo was a different commodity liable to purchase tax under
section 3AAAA - Whether mounting of body over chassis did not amount to
manufacturing activity but it facilitated chassis for purpose of usable item and, thus,
no different commercial item had emerged - Held, yes - Whether, consequently,
impugned order passed by Assessing Officer was to be set aside - Held, yes [Section
3AAAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948] - Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow v. Ashish Automobiles (All.) 240
PENALTY
- IN CASE OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF SALES TURNOVER OF OLD VEHICLES - Assessment
years 2005-06 and 2006-07 - Assessee, a registered dealer, was engaged in sale of twowheelers
- It conducted exchange mela wherein owners of old two-wheelers were
provided with facility to exchange their old vehicles with new ones - As per terms of
agreement, if value of old vehicle fixed by assessee’s broker was accepted by
customer then he could purchase new vehicle from assessee by remitting balance
sale price - Subsequently, broker sold old vehicles delivered by customers and
remitted value earlier fixed to assessee with which entire price of new vehicles sold
to customers, got paid - Even though old two wheelers were purchased from
customers and resold later by assessee and broker, neither assessee nor broker
conceded any purchase and sale of old vehicles - In view of non-payment of tax on
sale of old vehicles, Intelligence Officer levied penalty under section 67 - Whether
having regard to fact that purchase and sale of old vehicles were either by or on
behalf of assessee, impugned penalty order passed by Intelligence Officer was to be
confirmed - Held, yes [Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003] - Cheerans
Auto Agencies v. State of Kerala (Ker.) 217
- Assessee was engaged in manufacturing and sale of iron and steel goods - It was
entitled to tax exemption under Act for a period of seven years with effect from
27-3-2000 to 26-3-2007 - Assessee sold certain goods to consignee ‘M’ vide invoice
dated 26-3-2007 and earmarked for loading in truck which was reported at ICC
center on 30-3-2007 - Required documents as envisaged under sub-section (2) of
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 5