tea

tea

Levy of purchase tax on corresponding purchase value of paddy to the sale of husk under u/S. 4(4) of the APVAT Act, 2005

Tax on developing, processing and printing of photographs out of either negative rolls or in the form of CDs or data storage cards

VAT registration within the State is mandatory for claiming notional input tax credit

Products capable of being used as cosmetics and toilet preparations including tooth paste etc., are excluded from the definition of Drugs & Medicines

Mere issue of certified copy of assessment would not entitle the assessee to prefer an appeal on certified copy instead of original assessment order

It is mandatory to file FORM VAT 250 to pay tax at the rate of four percent on the total value of the contract for composition dealers

The excess claim of ITC as against the eligible amount is liable for penalty

Rate of tax for the product AMUL LITE

100% penalty for the under-declared tax

The products manufactured by the dealer like Vicco tooth paste and tooth powder cannot be regarded as drugs and medicines even though they are manufactured under the drug license as per Entry 37 to the first schedule to the APGST Act, products capable of being use as cosmetics and toiletry preparations including tooth paste, tooth powder etc are excluded from the definition of drugs and medicines.

Turnover relating to sales of cars to Canteen Stores Department and Government Departments was taxed at 4% being the concessional rate allowed on these sales by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.68, Revenue, dt.3.2.1997

The order is considered to be “sufficiently served” if it is left at the registered office of the person or any place of business of that person. The proper meaning of the words “left at the registered office or place of business” as the case may be have to be construed as being left with a responsible person of the dealer.

The appellant claimed that they had received hire charges from M/s. RMC Ready Mix Ltd., for hiring the transit mixers but there was no transfer of right to use these goods and therefore the impugned transactions are not liable to tax under Section 5E of the APGST Act, ’57. The work order / agreement merely stipulate that four transit mixers are to be placed at the disposal of the hiree for transport of RMC every day. Tribunal held that the appellant had transferred the right to use the goods so as to attract liability to pay tax

The appellant had contended the decision of the assessing authority in disallowing the payments made to the sub-contractors as deduction on the ground that the appellant had not maintained the books of account and claimed deduction under Rule 17(1)(g). Once the ad-hoc deduction method is chosen by the dealer himself, there was no provision enabling the assessing authority to deduct the sub-contract turnover from the total turnover.

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that on a combined reading of Section 4(7)(a) read with relevant clauses of Rule 17, would show that where books of account are maintained, then out of the total consideration certain deductions are allowed towards labour charges, cost of establishment, consumables, profit relatable to labour etc., as stipulated in clause (e) subject to the condition that such total consideration after deductions shall not be less than the purchase value of the goods as increased by the other expenditure like seigniorage, loading and unloading charges etc., stipulated in Rule 17(1)(d). Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal find in other words that there cannot be a situation where the output tax is lesser than the input tax credit in the case of M/s. Balajee Infratech & Constructions Pvt. Ltd in TA No.63/2019, Dt. 24-03-2020 and accordingly held that the provisions of Section 13(1-A) are clearly not applicable to the case of a works contractor.

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that no authorization was prescribed to levy of penalty u/S 49(2) of the TVAT act, 2005 before passing order as the prescribed authority is registering authority concerned or assessing authority concerned or inspecting authority concerned under Rule 59(4) of TVAT Rules. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Sri Balaji Flour Mills, Chittoor Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Chittoor, (2011) 52 APSTJ 85 was not applicable for passing the order u/s 49(2).

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that levy of tax on spare parts during the warranty period was a separate transaction between the distributor and the manufacturer, resulting in sale of parts which is exigible to tax relying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons & Another vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, (39 APSTJ p.150). Further, it was also observed that the decision in Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons & Another was referred to a larger Bench in the case of Tata Motors Ltd., vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL) and Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.1822 of 2007 dated 5-2-2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that they had certain reservations in respect of the observations and legal propositions laid down in that case. However, The Hon’ble Tribunal find that the decision in Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons & Another case is still hold and had not been stayed or suspended.