news round up - Taxmann

More documents

Recommendations

Info

192 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1 not contain any such narrations. The question as to whether there is any directs involvement of the dealers in perpetrating such a fraud is yet to be enquired and no such specific allegation is raised. On the other hand in spite of specific contention raised by two of the petitioners that they are innocent and the malpractices were committed by some third person without their knowledge or connivance, no advertence to such contentions is seen made, nor any conclusion was seen arrived repelling such contentions. 16. Considering the haste at which the matter was dealt with and considering the contents of the proposals issued as well as contents of the orders impugned, I am of the opinion that there was no independent application of mind rendered by the competent authority while issuing the proposals and while finalizing the proceedings. It is evident that the entire proceedings were pursued in an attempt to give effect to the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The cryptic nature of the conclusions narrated in the impugned orders, itself reveals non-application of mind and non-advertence to the objections. Therefore I am of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained while tested on the touchstone of the mandatory requirements of a quasi-judicial proceedings, and therefore, those orders are liable to be quashed. 17. But it is made clear that quashing of the impugned proceedings will not in any way prevent the competent authority in initiating fresh proceedings for cancellation of registration on issuing fresh notices, enumerating valid g<strong>round</strong>s either under section 16(9) or under section 16(10) of the KVAT Act read with rule 17(18) of the KVAT Rules, and in finalizing such proceedings after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to object such proposal, and after affording opportunity of personal hearing. It is also made clear that quashing of the impugned proceedings is without prejudice to any other proceedings already initiated or which may be initiated against the petitioners for imposition of penalty, demand for additional security deposit, demand for payment of tax amounts due with interest, and such other proceedings. 18. In the result the writ petitions are allowed quashing the impugned orders in all the three cases, wherein registration of the petitioners under KVAT Act and CST Act are cancelled. But it is made clear that the quashing of the impugned orders is without prejudice to any fresh proceedings which may be initiated against the petitioners under section 16(9) or/and section 16(10) of the KVAT Act, read with rule 17(18) of the KVAT Rules, based on the same cause of incidents, facts and circumstances, and the authority concerned shall take note of the observations made hereinabove, before taking any fresh proceedings. ■■ GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 68 A B C D E F G
2010] Commissioner, Trade Tax v. K.S. Trading Co. (All.) 193 A B C D E F G [2010] 1 GST 193 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow v. K.S. Trading Co.* DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J. TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 146 OF 2008 AUGUST 21, 2009 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 - 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] FACTS The assessee was a commission agent for the purchase and sales of different agricultural produce. The assessee made the purchases for ex- U.P. principals on commission basis. The Assessing Officer found that no contract whatsoever had been entered into with the ex-U.P. principals and they never appointed the assessee as their agent and s<strong>up</strong>ply orders were made only on the basis of the alleged telephonic calls which could not be ascertained. The Assessing Officer also observed that the purchases from the farmers were not verifiable as the full addresses of the farmers were not given. The Assessing Officer refused to treat the said transactions as inter-State purchases. The Assessing Officer observed that the purchases were made for self so he levied the tax which was restricted by the first appellate authority. On second appeal, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee by observing that it had sent its goods outside U.P. On revision : *In favour of assessee. GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 69
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: 136 Goods & Services Tax - Statutes
Page 24 and 25: 114 GOODS & SERVICES TAX - MAGAZINE
Page 50 and 51: 174 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 118 and 119:
242 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Re
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136:
show all

news round up - Taxmann

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?