news round up - Taxmann

Contents v
[Section 15A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948] - Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Trade Tax, UP (All.) 257
REGISTRATION
- Period 3-8-2000 to 3-9-2000 - Petitioner was a registered dealer dealing in live
chicken, hatching chicks, equipments, poultry feeds and poultry medicines, etc. - Dy.
Commissioner found that bank instruments furnished by dealer towards advance
tax between period from 3-8-2000 to 3-9-2000 worth Rs. 50,000, had been dishonoured
for insufficiency of funds in bank account - On basis of said report Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, held that tendering of invalid bank instruments and dishonouring
of same when presented for encashment was a ‘good and sufficient reason’
provided under section 16(10), for cancelling registration - It further held that
instruments tendered by dealer were accepted by officials of check post, on
presumption that, those were ‘Pay orders’ issued by bank, and description of
signature in instruments was printed in order to mislead check post authorities that
those were ‘Pay orders’, but, in fact those instruments were cheques issued by
‘Farmers Development Society’ in favour of Commercial Tax Inspector; therefore,
nature of offence committed by dealer was grave and was liable to be dealt with
under provisions of section 16(10), read with rule 17(18)(vii) and, accordingly, he
cancelled registration of petitioner - It was found from records that (i) no action as
enumerated in rule 28 which provided for specific procedure with respect to
dishonour of cheques, was resorted to in instant case, (ii) before taking any action on
basis of abovesaid allegations, principles of natural justice demanded that dealers
should be put on with specific notices raising such allegations and they should be
given adequate opportunity to defend such allegations, however, proposed notices
issued in instant case did not reveal any such instances or did not contain any of
narrations of fraud committed by petition - Whether in view of above said facts,
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not justified in cancelling registration of
petitioner - Held, yes [Section 16 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with
rule 17 and rule 28 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005] - Shanthi Poultry
Farm (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Inspector (Ker.) 182
SALE
- Assessment year 1993-94 - Whether manufacturing of bus bodies on chassis as per
design, specifications and seating capacity supplied by customers, amounted to sale
of motor vehicle bodies, and is liable to tax under provisions of Act - Held, yes [Section
68 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005] - New Model Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of
Punjab (Punj. & Har.) 222
- Assessee, trading company, provided tankers to Indian Oil Corporation - Tribunal
found that it was for oil company to use or not to use tankers and assessee was having
no control over movement of tankers - Whether since transfer of right of property
is not transfer of property, no tax was leviable on assessee - Held, yes [Section 2(h),
read with section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948] - Commissioner, Trade
Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Alok Trading Co. (All.) 253
- Assessee-agency wanted to terminate agency and, hence, returned old goods to
principal-medicine manufacturer - Manufacturer received old stock of medicines
which might have expired by time of return - Whether return of old goods, unfit for
sale, to principal by agent cannot be considered as sale and, hence, tax could not be
levied on same - Held, yes [Section 2(h), read with section 3 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act,
1948] - G.D. Pharma v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (All.) 255
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 7