sgalaw.insgalaw.in/image/SGA_COMPOSITE_NEWSLETTER_Issue19.pdf · SGA LAW – 2015 Q4 (October...

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4

(October Issue19 to Dec. Issue 24 1

COMPOSITE JOURNAL, 2015

(October Issue 19 to December Issue 24)

CONTENTS

PAGES

1. NOMINAL INDEX ..... 2-5

2. SUBJECT INDEX ..... 6-61

3. SECTION INDEX ..... 62-67

4. REPORTS OF CASES ..... 68-455

5. NOTIFICATIONS ..... 456-489

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4




NOMINAL INDEX

AAAAA 5

A AASRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 392

AGGARWAL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 422

AJAY ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 292

AMAR NATH AGGARWAL INVESTMENTS (P) LTD VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 244

AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (P&H) 301

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS STATE OF PUNJAB (P&H) 265

ASHIRWAD SALES CORPORATION VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 454

B BHAWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 389

BOMBAY INTERIOR DECORATERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 354

C CENTRAL PHOENIX CLUB VS STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) 309

COMMERCIAL MOTORS LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. (SC) 74

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER VS A INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (SC) 184

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS ANAND FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS (P&H) 332

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS SARON MECHANICAL WORKS (P&H) 345

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV VS FITRITE PACKERS (SC) 84

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, CHD VS DHIMAN INDUSTRIES (P&H) 259

D DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. (SC) 90

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 229

E EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (P&H) 250

ESS EMM METAL WORKS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 276

F FRIENDS HI-TECH INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 404

G GILAN INTEL CABLES LTD VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TBNL & ANR. (P&H) 335

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES & ORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I (SC) 208

GUPTA STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (P&H) 285

GURDASPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 440

H HPL ADDITIVES LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 263

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


I ITC LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 430

J J.K. ASSOCIATES VS EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER (P&H) 324

J.K. IRON STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 397

J.S.R. RELATORS PVT. LTD. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (P&H) 330

JAI BHAGWATI RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 407

JALANDHAR ENGINEERING CO. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 424

JBJ PERFUMES PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (P&H) 351

K KARTAR TRACTORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 370

KATARIA RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 419

KIRPAL EXPORTS VS DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER (P&H) 312

L LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD (SC) 174

LLOYD ELECTRIC AND ENGINEERING LTD VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. (SC) 68

M M.K. INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 248

MANOJ KUMAR KANSAL VS STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) 217

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 290

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LDH VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX (P&H) 237

MUNISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF PUNJAB (P&H) 219

N NEW DEVI GRIT UDYOG VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 294

O OM PARKASH SURINDER MOHAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 359

ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. (P&H) 234

P P.D. AGGARWAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 399

PANKAJ MOTORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 232

PATIALA AUTO ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 376

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 240

PIONEER ELECTRONICS VS UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH (P&H) 225

PRAKASH PIPES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. (P&H) 269

PRERNA STRIPS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (P&H) 221

PUNJ LLOYD LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 432

R RAMESH AND COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 365

RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) 272

RISHAB FARMS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 257

RUKHMINI POLYTUBES P. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 246

S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (P&H) 281

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


SANJEEV STONE CRUSHING COMPANY VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 339

SATPAL SURINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 385

SHAKTI MITTAL CONTRACTOR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHER (P&H) 223

SHIVANSH MOTORS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 444

SHREE GANESH ROLLER FLOUR MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 437

SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (SC) 196

SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. (SC) 161

STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES (P&H) 315

SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 450

SUPERFINE RICE INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 374

SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 368

SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 254

T TALSON MILL STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB (P&H) 279

TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, HISAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (P&H) 326

V VANSER METALICS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 427

VARSHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (P&H) 328

VIJAY AUTO ELECTRICAL PARTS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 410

VIKAS JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB (PB & TBNL) 413

NOTICE, CIRCULAR AND NOTIFICATION

CHANDIGARH U.T.

DATE EXTENDED FOR E-FILING OF VAT-20 19.11.2015 460

NOTIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS IN SCHEDULE B & E OF PUNJAB VAT ACT, 2005

NO. E&T-ETO (REF.)-2015/3646 11.12.2015 457

NOTIFICATION REGARDING LEVY OF LUXURY TAX ON HOTELS & BANQUETS

NO. E&T/ETO (REF.)-2015/3605 07.12.2015 458

PUNJAB

PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING EXTENTION OF DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR Q-2 OF 2015-16 29.12.2015 459

AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE-III OF THE PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 2002 NO. S.O.49/P.A.8/2002/S.53/2015 10.11.2015 460

AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE-E APPENDED TO THE PUNJAB VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2005

(PUNJAB ACT NO. 8 OF 2005). NO. S.O.50/P.A.8/2005/S.8/2015 17.11.2015 461

DATE EXTENDED FOR E-FILING OF VAT-20 19.11.2015 462

THE PUNJAB DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (VALIDATION)

ORDINANCE, 2015 NO. 40-LEG./2015 14.12.2015 463

NOTIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENT IN SEC. 25 OF PIDRA ACT, 2002 NO. 32-LEG./2015 27.11.2015 470

NOTIFICATION REGARDING TAX ON PAPER BOARD UNDER THE CST ACT

NO.S.O.56/C.A.74/1956/S.8/2015 02.12.2015 473

NOTIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENT SCHEDULES 'B' AND 'E' OF THE PVAT ACT, 2005

NO.S.O.57/P.A.8/2005/S.8/2015 02.12.2015 474

PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE (DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2015

NO. 19-PLA-2015/199 21.12.2015 475

HARYANA

NOTIFICATION REGARDING LUMPSUM SCHEME FOR DEVELOPERS NO.23/H.A.6/2003/S.60/2015 24.11.2015 478

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


DISCUSSION FORUM ON GST FOR ALL SHAKEHOLDERS 485

REPORT ON BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR GST ON REFUND PROCESSES IN GST REGIME 485

REPORT ON BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR GST ON REGISTRATION PROCESSES IN GST REGIME 486

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR GST- PAYMENT 487

ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING ONLINE RETURN FOR

THE QUARTER ENDING 30-09-2015 UPTO 16-11-2015 UNDER SECTION 54-A(3) OF HVAT ACT,2003 02.11.2015 488

AMENDMENT IN SCHEDULE E UNDER THE HVAT ACT, 2003

NO. 27 /ST-1/H.A. 6/2003/S.59/2015 24.11.2015 489

AAAAA

AAAA

Edited by

Aanchal Goyal, Advocate Partner SGA Law Offices

#224, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh – 160022

Teleface: +91-172-5016400, 2614017, 2608532, 4608532

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer:- While every effort has been made to ensure that this newsletter is free from errors or omissions, the authors/editors shall not be

liable in any manner whatsoever for any action taken or omitted to be taken opinions expressed advice rendered or accepted based on any

materials or information published in this newsletter. The information given in the present Newsletter is for the personal use of the intended recipient and should not be used in any commercial activity.

http://www.sgalaw.inmailto:[email protected]://www.facebook.com/pages/SGA-Law-Offices/160012497412971

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4




SUBJECT INDEX

AAAA 5

ADVANCE TAX

ADVANCE TAX – EXEMPTION – APPLICATION FILED FOR RENEWAL – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM

RESPONDENT - WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER DECIDING

THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY PETITIONER WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED – S.6(7) OF PVAT ACT,

2005 - SHAKTI MITTAL CONTRACTOR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHER 221

ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

WRIT/ALTERNATIVE REMEDY –SERVICE TAX – VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE ENCOURAGEMENT

SCHEME – APPLICATION FILED FOR DECLARING SERVICE TAX UNDER VCES SCHEME –

APPLICATION REJECTED – WRIT FILED – DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF IMPUGNED ORDER BEING

APPEALABLE – PETITIONER ALLOWED TO TAKE RECOURSE TO REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER LAW -

VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE ENCOURAGEMENT SCHEME, 2013 - J.S.R. RELATORS PVT. LTD. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 330

AMENDMENT

EXIM POLICY – AMENDMENT IN THE POLICY BY NOTIFICATION – CHALLENGE ON THE GROUND OF

NOT BEING IN PUBLIC INTEREST – GOVERNMENT PLACING ON RECORD DOCUMENTS SHOWING

RAMPANT MISUSE OF EXISTING POLICY REQUIRING THE AMENDMENT – ANALYSIS OF DATA

SUBSTANTIATES THE CLAIM OF GOVERNMENT – NOTIFICATION AMENDING POLICY HELD TO BE IN

PUBLIC INTEREST - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90

EXIM POLICY – AMENDMENT – WHETHER CLARIFICATORY - EXCLUSION OF SALES MADE BY ONE

STATUS HOLDER TO ANOTHER – HELD CLARIFICATORY – EXCLUSION OF SALE BY NON-STATUS

HOLDER TO STATUS HOLDER FOR CALCULATING THE VALUE OF EXPORT FOR INCREMENTAL

GROWTH – ALSO HELD CLARIFICATORY – SAME BENEFIT BEING ALREADY AVAILABLE TO

SEZ/EOU/EHTP/STP – AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY TO EXCLUDE DOUBLE BENEFIT – HELD

CLARIFICATORY - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90

AMENDMENT OF POLICY

EXIM POLICY – PUBLIC NOTICE – WHETHER POLICY CAN BE AMENDED THROUGH PUBLIC NOTICE

– ACT PRESCRIBES FOLLOWING OF PROPER PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT OF POLICY – SUCH

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MANDATORY – THE CONTENTS OF PUBLIC NOTICE WITHOUT

JURISDICTION EVEN IF IT WAS ISSUED FOR VALID REASONS AND RATIONALE - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


AMALGAMATION

EXEMPTED UNIT - EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE – AMALGAMATION – AMALGAMATION OF TWO

EXISTING EXEMPTED UNITS AS PER AMALGAMATION SCHEME – LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO

TRANSFER BENEFITS OF THE OTHER COMPANY TO ITS COMPANY U/R 28B OF HGST RULES IN VIEW

OF AMALGAMATION – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED – WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO TAKE A

DECISION ON THE LETTERS SENT BY THE PETITIONER REGARDING ISSUANCE OF AMENDED

ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE WITHIN THE PERIOD SO SPECIFIED – WRIT DISPOSED OF - RULE 28B (10-

C)OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RISHAB FARMS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 257

ANTICIPATORY BAIL

FORGERY – ANTICIPATORY BAIL –INDIAN PENAL CODE- RECEIPT FORGED REGARDING PAYMENT OF

VAT – F.I.R LODGED – ANTICIPATORY BAIL SOUGHT – REJECTION OF ON THE GROUND OF

CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION BEING REQUIRED TO REACH THE DEPTH OF THE MATTER – PRAYER

DECLINED – PETITION DISMISSED – S. 420/467/468/471 OF IPC - MUNISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF PUNJAB 217

APPEAL

APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY

APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF APPELLANT - DISMISSAL OF FIRST APPEAL ON

31/5/2011 – FILING OF APPEAL AFTER MORE THAN THREE YEARS – CONDONATION SOUGHT ON

BASIS OF ALLEGED INJURY AND HEALTH PROBLEM OF APPELLANT IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS – HELD

NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PRODUCED TO SHOW ALLEGED ILLNESS – CASUAL APPROACH ON PART

OF APPELLANT – EXPLANATION TENDERED IS NOT REASONABLE AND GENUINE – APPEAL DISMISSED

– S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SATPAL SURINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB 385

APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED –

PENALTY IMPOSED BY AETC– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR DELAYED FILING – APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL – CONTENTION RAISED THAT DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO SERIOUS ILLNESS OF

APPELLANT‟S ADVOCATE FOLLOWED BY HIS DEATH – HELD APPELLANT ALWAYS FOUND GUILTY OF

WILFUL NEGLECT – ENTRY TAX NOT PAID - NON APPEARANCE BEFORE PENALIZING OFFICER

DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES OBSERVED – NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS – NO EFFORT

MADE TO FILE APPEAL INSPITE OF THE KNOWING FULLY ABOUT ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – APPEAL

FILED TWO MONTHS POST EXPIRY OF COUNSEL - CASUAL APPROACH TAKEN TO GAIN TIME –

ADMISSION REGARDING NOT INFORMING AT ICC TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – DELAY NOT CONDONED -

APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BHAWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 389

LIMITATION – APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY – DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BY STATE –

FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT PASSED BY APEX COURT, HELD; MERELY BECAUSE DELAY IS BY STATE,

DELAY NOT TO BE CONDONED IN ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE – APPEAL DISMISSED ON GROUNDS

OF LIMITATION- S.5 OF LIMITATION ACT - STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES 315

APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – LIMITATION – COPY OF PENALTY ORDER RECEIVED WITHIN

TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF ORDER - FIRST APPEAL DISMISSED DUE TO DELAY OF 370 DAYS IN

FILING – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT COPY OF ORDER LOST BY

COUNSEL‟S EMPLOYEE – FINALLY APPEAL FILED AFTER COPY WAS RECOVERED DURING

RENOVATION – EXPLANATION APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT – COPY OF ORDER COULD HAVE

BEEN RECOVERED FROM ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN CASE OF LOSS OF PREVIOUS ONE – NO AFFIDAVIT

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


OF EMPLOYEE OF ADVOCATE GIVEN BY APPELLANT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT,

2005 - ITC LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB 430

APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME

APPEAL – ASSESSMENT ORDER – EXTENSION OF TIME – ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED - VIRES OF S.

29(4) UPHELD SUBSEQUENTLY BY HIGH COURT – WRIT FILED SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR

FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IN VIEW OF S.29(4) OF THE ACT –

PRAYER GRANTED – LIBERTY GIVEN TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS BEFORE APPROPRIATE

AUTHORITY – APPEAL NOT TO BE DISMISSED ON GROUND OF LIMITATION IF FILED WITHIN THE TIME

SPECIFIED – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – S. 29 & 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 290

APPEAL - JURISDICTION

APPEAL – APPELLATE AUTHORITY – JURISDICTION - POWER TO ADJUDICATE ON ISSUES BEYOND

SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL – NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY CALCULATED BY DESIGNATED OFFICER

BY ADDING PRIMARY FREIGHT TWICE BY MISTAKE ALTHOUGH PRINCIPALLY IT AGREED WITH THE

APPELLANT ON THE METHOD OF CALCULATING IT - APPEAL FILED BEFORE DETC ON THE GROUNDS

OF MATHEMATICAL MISCALCULATION OF NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY- DEPARTMENT ARGUED THAT

MATTER NEEDED FRESH CONSIDERATION AS STOCK VALUE TRANSFER STOOD CALCULATED ON

LOWER SIDE THEREBY RAISING A NEW CONTENTION – MATTER REMANDED BY DETC FOR FRESH

DECISION ON THE BASIS OF FRESH ISSUE RAISED– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL – APPEAL

BEFORE HIGH COURT – HELD: FOLLOWING EARLIER JUDGMENTS, APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOT

JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE MATTER ON BASIS OF THOSE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT

MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE IT- IMPUGNED ORDERS SET ASIDE – DETC TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER

HEARING BOTH PARTIES – S. 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 301

APPEAL - LIMITATION













APPEAL - PREDEPOSIT

SERVICE TAX -PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – DEMAND RAISED FOR SERVICE TAX

ON ACCOUNT OF SPACE SOLD FOR ADVERTISEMENTS BY ASSESSEE – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL –

STAY GRANTED SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE DEMAND AND INTEREST – APPEAL DISMISSED LATER

FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF STAY ORDER – APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT – WAIVER OF REMAINING

PART OF PREDEPOSIT PRAYED FOR AS 40% OF SERVICE TAX LIABILITY STOOD DEPOSITED –

CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALONGWITH THE FACTUM OF DEPOSIT OF

40% OF SERVICE TAX; REMAINING AMOUNT NOT TO BE INSISTED UPON FOR PREDEPOSIT –

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON MERITS – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – S.35G OF CENTRAL

EXCISE ACT, 1944 - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX 237

PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – INPUT TAX CREDIT – ADJUSTMENT OF – DEMAND

RAISED ON ASSESSMENT – APPEAL FILED ALONGWITH APPLICATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS

ITC TOWARDS PAYMENT FOR PREDEPOSIT – TIN NUMBER LOCKED SUBSEQUENTLY – WRIT FILED –

FACT OF TIN NUMBER BEING UNLOCKED BY THEN NOT DISPUTED – ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS ITC

TOWARDS PAYMENT FOR PREDEPOSIT IN COMPLIANCE OF S 62(5) OF THE ACT PERMITTED – WRIT

DISPOSED OF – S. 62(5), S 13 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - HPL ADDITIVES LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 263

PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL- ENTERTAINMENT OF – ADJUSTMENT OF INPUT TAX CREDIT – DISMISSAL OF

FIRST APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION OF PAYMENT OF 25% OF ADDITIONAL

DEMAND - APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL PRAYING ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS ITC TOWARDS PAYMENT

OF PREDEPOSIT – DEPARTMENT DIRECTED TO ADJUST THE UNUSED ITC LYING WITH IT AS SHOWN IN

LAST RETURNS – DETC TO HEAR APPEAL ON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF THE SAME – APPEAL ACCEPTED

– S. 62(5) OF THE ACT - SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 368

PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – DEMAND RAISED ON ASSESSMENT – DISMISSAL OF

FIRST APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF NON COMPLIANCE OF S 62(5) OF THE ACT – APPEAL FILED BEFORE

TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR WAIVER OF PREDEPOSIT AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUPPOSEDLY

ILLEGAL AS WELL AS WRIT FILED CHALLENGING VIRES OF S. 62(5) – ORDER OF STAY RESTRAINING

COURTS FROM DISMISSING APPEALS ON GROUNDS OF PREDEPOSIT VACATED BY HIGH COURT –

CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL PENDING BEFORE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH S.

62(5) OF THE ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED- S. 62(5) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - KARTAR TRACTORS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 370

PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – DEMAND RAISED -DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY FIRST

APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF CONDITION OF PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL – STATUTE STANDS CLARIFIED POST AMENDMENT REGARDING AMOUNT OF PREDEPOSIT

AS TO BE 25% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEMAND – NO EXPLANATION TENDERED BY APPELLANT AS TO

WHY APPEAL SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED WITHOUT PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL DISMISSED GRANTING

FURTHER TIME TO APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT FAILING WHICH ORDERS PASSED BY DETC

TO REMAIN INTACT – S. 62(5) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - J.K. IRON STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB 397

PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF – INPUT TAX CREDIT – SELLING DEALER – ITC OF

ASSESSEE- APPELLANT REJECTED AS TAX NOT DEPOSITED BY SELLING DEALERS - DISMISSAL OF

FIRST APPEAL FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF S. 62(5) OF THE ACT – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL

PRAYING WAIVER OF PREDEPOSIT – HELD, DENIAL OF ITC FOR NON DEPOSIT OF TAX BY SELLING

DEALER WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON APPELLANT – ASSESSMENT CASE OF THE

APPELLANT TO BE DECIDED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS SELLING DEALERS – MATTER

REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY – DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED AGAINST THE SELLING

DEALERS, IF FOUND LIABLE – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S. 62(5) AND S. 13 - FRIENDS HI-TECH INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF PUNJAB 404

PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL – ENTERTAINMENT OF - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS –DISMISSAL OF FIRST

APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF S. 62(5) OF THE PVAT ACT –

APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE APPEAL URGING THAT

WRIT PETITIONS PENDING BEFORE APEX COURT AFTER VACATION OF STAY WITH RESPECT TO

IMPLEMENTATION OF S. 62(5) –ALSO, ARGUED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID - PROCEEDINGS

NOT TO BE STAYED MERELY DUE TO PENDENCY OF WRIT PETITION – APPELLANT IN A GOOD

POSITION TO PAY THE REQUISITE AMOUNT – S. 62(5) AND R. 71 HELD TO BE MANDATORY IN

NATURE- ILLEGALITY OF ORDER TO BE SEEN DURING PROCEEDINGS – APPEAL DISMISSED –

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


PREDEPOSIT TO BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS FOR HEARING OF APPEAL – S. 62(5) AND R. 71 OF

THE ACT - PUNJ LLOYD LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 432

APPEAL – PREDEPOSIT – ENTERTAINMENT OF – APPELLATE AUTHORITY – DISMISSAL OF FIRST

APPEAL DUE TO NON COMPLIANCE OF PREDEPOSIT – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING

POWER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ITS MATTER CONTENDING THAT DETC WAS

VESTED WITH ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS – APPELLANT STOPPED FROM TAKING SUCH PLEA AT

THIS STAGE AS IT WERE NEVER TAKEN EARLIER – NON COMPLIANCE OF PREDEPOSIT U/ S 62(5)

BEING MANDATORY, APPEAL WAS RIGHTLY NOT ENTERTAINED – APPELLANT GRANTED FURTHER

TIME FOR PREDEPOSIT FOR ENTERTAINMENT OF ITS APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY –

S. 62(5) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 AND RULE 71(3) OF PVAT RULES - ASHIRWAD SALES CORPORATION VS STATE OF PUNJAB 454

APPELLATE AUTHORITY

APPEAL – APPELLATE AUTHORITY – JURISDICTION - POWER TO ADJUDICATE ON ISSUES BEYOND

SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL – NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY CALCULATED BY DESIGNATED OFFICER

BY ADDING PRIMARY FREIGHT TWICE BY MISTAKE ALTHOUGH PRINCIPALLY IT AGREED WITH THE

APPELLANT ON THE METHOD OF CALCULATING IT - APPEAL FILED BEFORE DETC ON THE GROUNDS

OF MATHEMATICAL MISCALCULATION OF NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY- DEPARTMENT ARGUED THAT

MATTER NEEDED FRESH CONSIDERATION AS STOCK VALUE TRANSFER STOOD CALCULATED ON

LOWER SIDE THEREBY RAISING A NEW CONTENTION – MATTER REMANDED BY DETC FOR FRESH

DECISION ON THE BASIS OF FRESH ISSUE RAISED– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL – APPEAL

BEFORE HIGH COURT – HELD: FOLLOWING EARLIER JUDGMENTS, APPELLATE AUTHORITY NOT

JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE MATTER ON BASIS OF THOSE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT

MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE IT- IMPUGNED ORDERS SET ASIDE – DETC TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER

HEARING BOTH PARTIES – S. 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 301

ASSESSMENT

WORKS CONTRACT - DEVELOPER/BUILDER – ASSESSMENT – FLATS/ APARTMENTS / UNITS – SALE

OF – ASSESSEE DEVELOPER OF FLATS/APARTMENTS - TAX CHARGED INCLUDING VALUE OF LAND –

NOTICE SERVED ON APPELLANT AS ALLEGED BY DEPARTMENT - WRIT FILED CONTENDING

IMPOSITION OF TAX NOT VALID THERE BEING NO MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF TAX AND IT

BEING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY – QUESTION OF LIMITATION REGARDING PROCEEDINGS

TAKEN UP – HELD: IN VIEW OF AN EARLIER JUDGMENT WHERE THE SAME ISSUE IS ALREADY

ADJUDICATED THE MATTER SENT TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY- PETITIONER AT LIBERTY TO AGITATE

POINT OF LIMITATION ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO SHALL PASS A SPEAKING

ORDER – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S. 2 (1) (zg) OF HVAT ACT, R. 25(2) OF HVAT RULES - SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 254

ASSESSMENT - DECLARATION FORMS – WHETHER PRODUCTION AT APPELLATE STAGE

PERMISSIBLE – ASSESSMENT FRAMED RAISING DEMAND – APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIGH COURT

SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE THE REQUIRED DECLARATION FORMS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

– PERMISSION TO PRODUCE THE FORMS BEFORE ASSESSING AUTHORITY GRANTED IN VIEW OF AN

EARLIER JUDGMENT – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – RULE 28B OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA 272

ASSESSMENT – EX PARTE ASSESSMENT – NOTICE – IMPROPER SERVICE – NOTICE ALLEGEDLY

SERVED TO ASSESSEE BEFORE FRAMING ASSESSMENT – ASSESSMENT FRAMED EX PARTE – ITC

DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INVOICES AND NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS – WRIT FILED CONTENDING

PRIOR NOTICE NOT SERVED ON ASSESSEE – PETITIONER WILLING TO FURNISH REQUIRED

DOCUMENTARY PROOF – WRIT ALLOWED WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING ORDER – PUNJAB VAT ACT, 2005 - ESS EMM METAL WORKS VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 276

ASSESSMENT – LIMITATION – YEAR 2005-06 – ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 30.03.2011 – DETC

REMANDING THE CASE BACK – APPEAL FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL – ASSESSING AUTHORITY AGAIN

PASSED THE ORDER DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – APPELLATE AUTHORITY

DISMISSED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BY WAY OF PRE-DEPOSIT – TRIBUNAL

DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN THE MEANWHILE HOLDING THE SAME AS INFRUCTUOUS – ON APPEAL

BEFORE HIGH COURT – MATTER SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT –

ASSESSMENT FOR 2005-06 CANNOT BE FRAMED BEYOND THREE YEARS – APPEAL ALLOWED - TALSON MILL STORE VS STATE OF PUNJAB 279

ASSESSMENT – LIMITATION – ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 – FRAMING OF IN YEAR 2012 – APPEAL

FILED CONTENDING ASSESSMENT TO BE TIME BARRED BEING FRAMED AFTER THREE YEARS –

ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED IS HELD TO BE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD – AMENDMENT OF S

29(4), HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, PERMITS FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX

YEARS – APPEAL DISMISSED- S.29 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - JAI BHAGWATI RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 407

REVISION – ASSESSMENT – JURISDICTION – REVISIONAL AUTHORITY - SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR

REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD – WRIT FILED

CHALLENGING THE NOTICE ON THE BASIS OF ABSENCE OF POWER OF THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH

NOTICE – HELD: NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE NOTICE – PETITIONER OUGHT TO

FILE REPLY AND RAISE ALL PLEAS AS RAISED IN THIS WRIT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES - REVISIONAL

AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE REPLY WITHIN SIX WEEKS, IF FILED, AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER –

PETITIONER OPEN TO TAKE RECOURSE TO AVAILABLE REMEDIES IN CASE OF GRIEVANCE BY THE

ORDER SO PASSED – S.34 OF HVAT ACT, 2005 - AJAY ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 292

ASSESSMENT – EXEMPTION – EXEMPTED UNIT – EXPORT – EXPORT UNIT ENJOYING EXEMPTION-

RICE EXPORTED OUT OF PADDY PURCHASED- ANNUAL STATEMENT FILED - LEVY OF PURCHASE TAX

ON PADDY BY ASSESSING AUTHORITY – DISALLOWANCE OF ITC ON ONE HAND AND REVERSAL OF

ITC ON OTHER HAND – APPEAL DISMISSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT PASSING

SPEAKING ORDER – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MATTER REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING

AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER – S.13, S.19 OF

PVAT ACT, 2005 - KATARIA RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 419

ASSESSMENT ORDER

APPEAL – ASSESSMENT ORDER – EXTENSION OF TIME – ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED - VIRES OF S.

29(4) UPHELD SUBSEQUENTLY BY HIGH COURT – WRIT FILED SEEKING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR

FILING OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IN VIEW OF S.29(4) OF THE ACT –

PRAYER GRANTED – LIBERTY GIVEN TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS BEFORE APPROPRIATE

AUTHORITY – APPEAL NOT TO BE DISMISSED ON GROUND OF LIMITATION IF FILED WITHIN THE TIME

SPECIFIED – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – S. 29 & 62 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 290

ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX

PENALTY – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – CHECK POST / ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ENTRY TAX – GOODS

VEHICLE – DETENTION OF – GOODS VEHICLE DETAINED – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7) OF THE ACT

– ALONG WITH LEVY OF ENTRY TAX UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF 2015 – WRIT FILED FOR RELEASE

OF GOODS – PETITIONER DIRECTED TO FURNISH BANK GUARANTEE FOR RELEASE OF GOODS WHICH

WOULD NOT BE ENCASHED TILL THE QUESTION OF VIRES OF ORDINANCE 2015 IS ADJUDICATED

UPON – WRIT DISPOSED OF – S.51(7)( C)PVAT ACT, 2005; S. 7 OF PUNJAB DEVELOPMENT OF

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


TRADE AND COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL ORDINANCE 2015 - M.K. INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 248

PENALTY – CHECK POST – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – INGENUINE BILL – GOODS IN TRANSIT SOLD

TO FIRM B, JALANDHAR -BILL NO. 705 PRODUCED SHOWING GOODS AS „REJECTED AND RETURNED

– GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT THE GOODS WERE ORIGINALLY SUPPLIED TO

FIRM A IN HAMBRAN VIDE BILL NO 704 OF THE SAME DATE WHICH WERE REJECTED BY BUYER –

RELOADED FOR SALE TO FIRM B FROM PREMISES OF FIRM A ALONGWITH BILL 705 – SAID NOTE ON

BILL PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WRONGLY ON BILL 705 DUE TO FAULT OF EMPLOYEE

OF REJECTING FIRM – PENALTY IMPOSED AS SALE BILL FILE REFLECTED PLACE OF LOADING AS

LUDHIANA – FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVED SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHT IN

BOTH CONSIGNMENTS AND PLEA OF OVERSIGHT BY EMPLOYEE NOT CONVINCING – PENALTY

UPHELD BY HIGH COURT AS FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW NOT PERVERSE – APPEAL

DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 250

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – DECLARATION FORM

XXXVI – GOODS IN TRANSIT CHECKED- ABSENCE OF FORM XXXVI – DRIVER STATED TO HAVE

TAKEN ESCAPE ROUTE ON APPELLANT‟S DIRECTIONS TO AVOID DECLARATION AT ICC – PENALTY

IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – PLEA THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN TO AVOID TOLL TAX

NOT ACCEPTED – WITHDRAWL OF DRIVER‟S STATEMENT CONSIDERED TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT -

NO PROMPT PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INDICATED MANIPULATION OF ENTRIES – NON

FURNISHING OF DECLARATION AT ICC VIEWED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – PENALTY

UPHELD – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BOMBAY INTERIOR DECORATERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 354

PENALTY – CHECK POST /ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – ESCAPE ROUTE –

GOODS (SUGAR) IN TRANSIT INTERCEPTED ON ESCAPE ROUTE – ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING

ADOPTING ESCAPE ROUTE ON OWNER‟S DIRECTION – GOODS DETAINED – ADMISSION BY

APPELLANT THAT ESCAPE ROUTE TAKEN BY DRIVER IN ORDER TO KEEP TRANSACTION OUT OF

BOOKS – PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51(7)(c) OF THE ACT – APPEAL FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD

„SUGAR‟ BECAME TAXABLE ON JULY 24, 2012 WHICH IS BEFORE THE DATE OF DISPATCH OF GOODS

IN QUESTION – CONTENTION REGARDING APPELLANT‟S IGNORANCE OF SUGAR BEING TAXABLE NOT

ACCEPTED - MISTAKE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE – ADMISSION BY APPELLANT REGARDING TAKING OF

ESCAPE ROUTE INTENTIONALLY CONFIRMS ITS AWARENESS ABOUT SUGAR BEING EXIGIBLE TO TAX

AND CANNOT TO BE SKIPPED OVER - APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - RAMESH AND COMPANY VS STATE OF PUNJAB 365

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING -ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – UNREGISTERED

DEALER – GOODS IN TRANSIT REACHED ICC – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED- APPELLANT FOUND TO BE

UNREGISTERED IN PUNJAB – CONSIGNMENT MENTIONED THAT REGISTRATION ALREADY APPLIED

FOR – GOODS DETAINED – FACTUALLY, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE APPLIED AND RECEIVED FEW

DAYS LATER AFTER DETENTION BUT BEFORE ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ARISING OF TAX

LIABILITY – PENALTY IMPOSED FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT REGARDING REGISTRATION

BEING APPLIED FOR BEFORE DETENTION – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MERE DISCLOSURE OF

WRONG FACT DOES NOT NEGATE HIS RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM

THE DATE THE LIABILITY AROSE- VOLUNTARY REPORTING – DOCUMENTS FOUND TO BE CORRECT –

TRANSACTION DULY STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETURNS – FORMALITIES COMPLETED BY

APPELLANT - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.51(7)(b) AND S.21 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AASRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 392

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOLD ORNAMENTS

CARRIED BY EMPLOYEES IN A BUS FROM DELHI TO PUNJAB – GOODS CHECKED BY POLICE AND

EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERS INFORMED PURSUANT THERETO – EMPLOYEES STATED AT FIRST

INSTANCE THAT GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY IN PATIALA TO A JEWELLER – GOODS DETAINED –

PENALTY IMPOSED FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – ADMISSION AT

FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY AND NON DISCLOSURE AT ICC– NO

AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY PURCHASING JEWELLER THAT GOODS NOT MEANT FOR DELIVERY TO HIM –

BILL PRODUCED NOT INDICATIVE OF GOODS BEING TAKEN FOR DISPLAY AS ALLEGED – ACCOUNT

BOOKS FOUND MANIPULATED – ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF INFORMATION AT VIRTUAL ICC –

ALL THESE FACTS INDICATIVE OF INITIAL STATEMENT MADE BY EMPLOYEES REGARDING

DELIVERY OF GOODS BEING TRUE- APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VIKAS JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 413

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOODS IN TRANSIT –

DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AT ICC – GOODS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD TO FIRM C BY FIRM B ON

THE ORDER OF FIRM A - PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51 FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL – NO ENDORSEMENT OBSERVED ON BILL- ABSENCE OF NAME OF PURCHASER AND TIN

NUMBER OF SELLING DEALER – INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – PENALTY RIGHTLY LEVIED – APPEAL

DISMISSED – S.51(7)(b) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AGGARWAL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 422

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – NON GENERATION OF

e-ICC – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING STOCK TRANSFER

INVOICE AND GR – NO E-ICC PRODUCED – GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT E-

ICC NOT GENERATED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL FAULT IN OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGARDING WHICH

WRITTEN INFORMATION DULY GIVEN TO AUTHORITIES – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL- NON GENERATION OF E-ICC DUE TO TECHNICAL FAULT OF WEBSITE INDICATES

BONAFIDES AS AUTHORITIES STOOD INFORMED BY APPELLANT – GOODS NOT MEANT FOR SALE AND

WERE BEING TRANSPORTED WITHIN THE STATE – NO MENSREA TO EVADE TAX RECORDED BY

PENALIZING OFFICER– EXCISE DUTY ALREADY PAID - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.

51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VANSER METALICS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 427

PENALTY – CHECK POST / ROADSIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX –NEW CAR IN TRANSIT

APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING TEMPORARY REGISTRATION , INSURANCE

COVER, COPY INVOICE – DETENTION PRESUMING IT TO BE MEANT FOR SALE AND ABSENCE OF

GENERATION OF VAT XXXVI – PENALTY LEVIED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: NO

EVIDENCE TO SHOW CAR MEANT FOR SALE – NO ADMISSION ON PART OF DRIVER IN THIS REGARD –

DOCUMENTS COMPLETE OTHERWISE – TAX OF PUNJAB STATE NOT INVOLVED – FORM VAT

XXXVI NOT REQUIRED TO BE GENERATED AS CAR NOT MEANT FOR SALE – CHECKING OFFICER NOT

SUPPOSED TO DECIDE NATURE OF TRANSACTION ON ROADSIDE ASSUMING POWER OF ASSESSING

AUTHORITY – CAR NOT TO BE TREATED AS GOODS VEHICLE AS IT WAS NOT CARRYING ANY GOODS

AND IF TREATED ITSELF AS GOODS, IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY REQUIRED DOCUMENTS – PENALTY

IMPOSED ON SURMISES – PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED –S 51(2), 51(4) , 51(6) , 51(7) OF

PVAT ACT, 2005 - SHIVANSH MOTORS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 444

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – STOCK TRANSFER –

GOODS SENT FROM HEAD OFFICE AT JAMMU TO MOHALI BRANCH AS PER INVOICE – VAT XXXVI

GENERATED -SUBSEQUENTLY, GOODS TAKEN TO GURDASPUR – VEHICLE CHASED BY STAFF -

GOODS SUSPECTED TO BE MEANT FOR SALE TO ANOTHER FIRM INSTEAD OF BRANCH TRANSFER AT

MOHALI – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL- ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING

DIRECTION TO HIM BY OWNER TO DELIVER GOODS AT GURDASPUR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT -NO

INVOICE SHOWN WITH REGARD TO SALE TO THE GURDASPUR FIRM – INVOICE ISSUED BY

MANUFACTURING UNIT AT JAMMU FOUND INGENUINE – GR MANIPULATED BY THE APPELLANT –

NO TAX PAID TO STATE OF PUNJAB ON SALE OF SUCH GOODS –– OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


BELOW FOUND WELL FOUNDED – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX ESTABLISHED - APPEAL DISMISSED – S.

51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 450

BUILDERS










BURDEN OF PROOF

SALE TO REGISTERED DEALER – BURDEN OF PROOF – DECLARATION FORM ST XXII –DEMAND

RAISED AFTER FIVE YEARS OF ASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF INGENUINE ST XXII FORMS – MATTER

REMITTED BY TRIBUNAL FOR REASSESSMENT AND DETAILED ENQUIRY BY DEPARTMENT – DEMAND

RAISED AGAIN FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND DENIAL BY PURCHASER OR NON

APPEARANCE BY THEM –SELLING DEALER CONTENDED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF

PROOF - SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: ONCE FORMS SUBMITTED ONUS STANDS

SHIFTED UPON DEPARTMENT - INABILITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS DUE TO LONG GAP NOT TO BE

COUNTED AGAINST APPELLANT – FORMS WITH MERE ABSENCE OF SIGNATURES OF ISSUING

AUTHORITY BUT BEARING GOVERNMENT SEAL CONSIDERED LEGAL – DENIAL BY PURCHASERS

REGARDING ISSUING OF SAID FORMS IMMATERIAL AS APPELLANT NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS

EXAMINE HIM - DEPARTMENT IN POSSESSION OF WHOLE RECORD THEREBY MEANING ONUS SHIFTED

ON DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THEIR CASE – APPEAL ACCEPTED ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS AS PER

ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED – S.5(2)(a)(ii) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PATIALA AUTO ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF PUNJAB 376

CEMENT MIX

EXCISE DUTY – CEMENT MIX – READY MIX CEMENT – EXEMPTION – COMPANY MANUFACTURING

CONCRETE MIX AT SITE FOR OWN USE –NO EXCISE DUTY PAID ASSUMING IT TO BE EXEMPTED

UNDER THE NOTIFICATION - EXCISE DUTY DEMANDED CONSIDERING IT TO BE A DIFFERENT

PRODUCT I.E. READY MIX CONCRETE AND NOT CONCRETE MIX –DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY

ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES HOLDING THAT THE PRODUCT IS RMC AS IT IS THE PROCESS OF

MIXING WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE TWO – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT CONTENDING THE TWO

PRODUCTS AS SAME AND THAT EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE ONLY WHEN RMC IS NOT

MANUFACTURED AT SITE – HELD : THE PROCESS OF MIXING THE CONCRETE DIFFERENTIATES RMC

AND CM – ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SHOWS APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT IT MANUFACTURED RMC

AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION ONLY ON BASIS OF IT BEING MANUFACTURED AT SITE – NOTIFICATION IN

QUESTION DOES NOT EXEMPT RMC BEING MANUFACTURED AND USED AT SITE- INTENTION OF

LEGISLATURE FACTUALLY DISPLAYED BY THE TWO ENTRIES CLASSIFIED SEPARATELY -CIRCULAR

ISSUED BY BOARD REFLECTED THE PROCESS AND MATERIALS ENGAGED IN MAKING RMC WHICH

OUTWEIGH THOSE USED IN CM - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO GO TO REVENUE IN CASE OF STRICT

INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATION - APPEAL DISMISSED – LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. & ANR. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD 174

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


CHECK POST

CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – EVASION OF TAX - F.I.R. – QUASHING OF – GOODS IN

TRANSIT APPREHENDED –ABSENCE OF BILL OR PAYMENT OF TAX – F.I.R. LODGED U/S 420 OF IPC -

PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 56(c) OF PVAT ACT – AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY PETITIONER AND GOODS

VEHICLE RELEASED THEREAFTER – QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS QUA THE SAME OFFENCE

PRAYED FOR – PETITION ALLOWED TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN THE GIVEN

CIRCUMSTANCES – S 420 I.P.C; S. 56(C) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PRERNA STRIPS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 219








PENALTY – CHECK POST – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – INGENUINE BILL – GOODS IN TRANSIT SOLD

TO FIRM B, JALANDHAR -BILL NO. 705 PRODUCED SHOWING GOODS AS „REJECTED AND RETURNED

– GOODS DETAINED – EXPLANATION TENDERED THAT THE GOODS WERE ORIGINALLY SUPPLIED TO

FIRM A IN HAMBRAN VIDE BILL NO 704 OF THE SAME DATE WHICH WERE REJECTED BY BUYER –

RELOADED FOR SALE TO FIRM B FROM PREMISES OF FIRM A ALONGWITH BILL 705 – SAID NOTE ON

BILL PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WRONGLY ON BILL 705 DUE TO FAULT OF EMPLOYEE

OF REJECTING FIRM – PENALTY IMPOSED AS SALE BILL FILE REFLECTED PLACE OF LOADING AS

LUDHIANA – FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVED SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE OF WEIGHT IN

BOTH CONSIGNMENTS AND PLEA OF OVERSIGHT BY EMPLOYEE NOT CONVINCING – PENALTY

UPHELD BY HIGH COURT AS FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW NOT PERVERSE – APPEAL

DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 250



















SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING -ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – UNREGISTERED

DEALER – GOODS IN TRANSIT REACHED ICC – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED- APPELLANT FOUND TO BE

UNREGISTERED IN PUNJAB – CONSIGNMENT MENTIONED THAT REGISTRATION ALREADY APPLIED

FOR – GOODS DETAINED – FACTUALLY, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE APPLIED AND RECEIVED FEW

DAYS LATER AFTER DETENTION BUT BEFORE ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ARISING OF TAX

LIABILITY – PENALTY IMPOSED FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT REGARDING REGISTRATION

BEING APPLIED FOR BEFORE DETENTION – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MERE DISCLOSURE OF

WRONG FACT DOES NOT NEGATE HIS RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM

THE DATE THE LIABILITY AROSE- VOLUNTARY REPORTING – DOCUMENTS FOUND TO BE CORRECT –

TRANSACTION DULY STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETURNS – FORMALITIES COMPLETED BY

APPELLANT - PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED – S.51(7)(b) AND S.21 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AASRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 392

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOLD ORNAMENTS

CARRIED BY EMPLOYEES IN A BUS FROM DELHI TO PUNJAB – GOODS CHECKED BY POLICE AND

EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERS INFORMED PURSUANT THERETO – EMPLOYEES STATED AT FIRST

INSTANCE THAT GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY IN PATIALA TO A JEWELLER – GOODS DETAINED –

PENALTY IMPOSED FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – ADMISSION AT

FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING GOODS MEANT FOR DELIVERY AND NON DISCLOSURE AT ICC– NO

AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY PURCHASING JEWELLER THAT GOODS NOT MEANT FOR DELIVERY TO HIM –

BILL PRODUCED NOT INDICATIVE OF GOODS BEING TAKEN FOR DISPLAY AS ALLEGED – ACCOUNT

BOOKS FOUND MANIPULATED – ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF INFORMATION AT VIRTUAL ICC –

ALL THESE FACTS INDICATIVE OF INITIAL STATEMENT MADE BY EMPLOYEES REGARDING

DELIVERY OF GOODS BEING TRUE- APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - VIKAS JEWELLERS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 413

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – GOODS IN TRANSIT –

DOCUMENTS PRESENTED AT ICC – GOODS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD TO FIRM C BY FIRM B ON

THE ORDER OF FIRM A - PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 51 FOR INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL – NO ENDORSEMENT OBSERVED ON BILL- ABSENCE OF NAME OF PURCHASER AND TIN

NUMBER OF SELLING DEALER – INGENUINE DOCUMENTS – PENALTY RIGHTLY LEVIED – APPEAL

DISMISSED – S.51(7)(b) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - AGGARWAL METAL WORKS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 422











PENALTY – CHECK POST / ROADSIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX –NEW CAR IN TRANSIT

APPREHENDED – DOCUMENTS PRODUCED SHOWING TEMPORARY REGISTRATION , INSURANCE

COVER, COPY INVOICE – DETENTION PRESUMING IT TO BE MEANT FOR SALE AND ABSENCE OF

GENERATION OF VAT XXXVI – PENALTY LEVIED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: NO

EVIDENCE TO SHOW CAR MEANT FOR SALE – NO ADMISSION ON PART OF DRIVER IN THIS REGARD –

DOCUMENTS COMPLETE OTHERWISE – TAX OF PUNJAB STATE NOT INVOLVED – FORM VAT

XXXVI NOT REQUIRED TO BE GENERATED AS CAR NOT MEANT FOR SALE – CHECKING OFFICER NOT

SUPPOSED TO DECIDE NATURE OF TRANSACTION ON ROADSIDE ASSUMING POWER OF ASSESSING

AUTHORITY – CAR NOT TO BE TREATED AS GOODS VEHICLE AS IT WAS NOT CARRYING ANY GOODS

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


AND IF TREATED ITSELF AS GOODS, IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY REQUIRED DOCUMENTS – PENALTY

IMPOSED ON SURMISES – PENALTY DELETED – APPEAL ACCEPTED –S 51(2), 51(4) , 51(6) , 51(7) OF

PVAT ACT, 2005 - SHIVANSH MOTORS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 444

PENALTY – CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX – STOCK TRANSFER –

GOODS SENT FROM HEAD OFFICE AT JAMMU TO MOHALI BRANCH AS PER INVOICE – VAT XXXVI

GENERATED -SUBSEQUENTLY, GOODS TAKEN TO GURDASPUR – VEHICLE CHASED BY STAFF -

GOODS SUSPECTED TO BE MEANT FOR SALE TO ANOTHER FIRM INSTEAD OF BRANCH TRANSFER AT

MOHALI – PENALTY IMPOSED – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL- ADMISSION BY DRIVER REGARDING

DIRECTION TO HIM BY OWNER TO DELIVER GOODS AT GURDASPUR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT -NO

INVOICE SHOWN WITH REGARD TO SALE TO THE GURDASPUR FIRM – INVOICE ISSUED BY

MANUFACTURING UNIT AT JAMMU FOUND INGENUINE – GR MANIPULATED BY THE APPELLANT –

NO TAX PAID TO STATE OF PUNJAB ON SALE OF SUCH GOODS –– OBSERVATIONS OF AUTHORITIES

BELOW FOUND WELL FOUNDED – ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX ESTABLISHED - APPEAL DISMISSED – S.

51(7)(c) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 450

CLANDESTINE REMOVAL

CLANDESTINE REMOVAL- EXCISE DUTY- SEARCH AT FACTORY PREMISES – SHORTAGE OF STOCK

ADMITTED BY APPELLANT -CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS CONCLUDED AND DEMAND RAISED –

ORDER OF ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER AS NO EVIDENCE FOUND

CONCLUDING CLANDESTINE REMOVAL – LACK OF ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD – RECORD OF ASSESEE

NOT SCRUTINIZED – METHOD OF STOCK POSITION VERIFICATION DOUBTED – BENEFIT OF DOUBT

EXTENDED BY COMMISSIONER TO ASSESSEE – ORDER UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT

NO INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF BUYERS OR SUPPLIERS OF RAW

MATERIAL TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION – NO PERVERSITY FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY HIGH

COURT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 11A AND 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT; RULE 25 OF

CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002; RULE 15 OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS ANAND FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS 332

CLARIFICATORY

EXIM POLICY – AMENDMENT – WHETHER CLARIFICATORY - EXCLUSION OF SALES MADE BY ONE

STATUS HOLDER TO ANOTHER – HELD CLARIFICATORY – EXCLUSION OF SALE BY NON-STATUS

HOLDER TO STATUS HOLDER FOR CALCULATING THE VALUE OF EXPORT FOR INCREMENTAL

GROWTH – ALSO HELD CLARIFICATORY – SAME BENEFIT BEING ALREADY AVAILABLE TO

SEZ/EOU/EHTP/STP – AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY TO EXCLUDE DOUBLE BENEFIT – HELD

CLARIFICATORY - DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR. VS KANAK EXPORTS AND ANR. 90

CLUB

CLUB – SALE – LEVY OF SALE TAX ON FOOD AND DRINKS – DEMAND RAISED AGAINST ASSESSEE

CLUB ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF FOOD AND DRINKS TO NON MEMBERS – APPEALS DISMISSED BY

AUTHORITIES – APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT CONTENDING ONUS ON DEPARTMENT TO PROVE

FACILITIES BEING GIVEN TO NONMEMBERS AS ALLEGED –MATTER REMANDED TO ASSESSING

AUTHORITY TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER FINDING WHETHER ITEMS SUPPLIED TO ITS

MEMBERS OR NONMEMBERS AND THEIR EXIGIBILITY TO TAX – APPEAL DISPOSED OF- S.2(1)(ze) - CENTRAL PHOENIX CLUB VS STATE OF HARYANA 309

CLUBBING OF TWO UNITS FOR ESTIMATING CLEARANCE

EXCISE DUTY – SSI EXEMPTION –CLUBBING OF TWO UNITS FOR ESTIMATING CLEARANCES-

FACTORY PREMISES OF FIRM A SEARCHED - CONCLUSION DRAWN REGARDING FIRM A AND

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


APPELLANT FIRM HAVING JOINTLY CROSSED THE DUTY EXEMPTION LIMIT AVAILABLE TO SSI UNITS

– DEMAND RAISED AGAINST BOTH RESPONDENT UNITS BY CLUBBING THEIR CLEARANCES – ORDER

SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT UNLESS APPELLANT UNIT WAS PROVED TO BE A

DUMMY UNIT, CLUBBING OF CLEARANCES NOT PERMITTED – APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE

TRIBUNAL DISMISSED HOLDING THAT TWO UNITS WERE SEPARATE - APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT

ALLEGING TWO UNITS IN QUESTION TO BE ONE ON THE BASIS OF HAVING COMMON RAW MATERIAL,

TELEPHONE, ELECTRICITY CONNECTION, ACCOUNTANT OFFICE - HELD : FINDINGS BY

COMMISSIONER AND TRIBUNAL BASED ON FACTS AND NOT SHOWN PERVERSE BY REVENUE-

APPEAL DISMISSED - S. 6 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944; R. 9 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE

RULES, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS SARON MECHANICAL WORKS 345

COLD ROLLING

COLD ROLLING – PROCESS OF – MANUFACTURE - EXCISE DUTY- COLD -ROLLING OF HOT- ROLLED

STAINLESS STEEL PATTIS TAKEN UP ON JOB WORK – EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID- DEMAND RAISED

CONSIDERING IT AS „MANUFACTURING‟ PROCESS‟- ORDER UPHELD BY COMMISSIONER REFERRING

TO HSN EXPLANATORY NOTES CONTENDING THAT SUCH PROCESS BRINGS ABOUT DISTINCT

CHARACTERISTICS, USE, IDENTITY AND NAME THEREBY RENDERING IT AS A NEW COMMODITY AND

CAPABLE OF BEING MARKETED– ORDER CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL AS THE PROCESS HARDENS THE

PRODUCT ENTAILING IT NEW CHARACTERISTICS – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – BASED ON

THE VIEW GIVEN BY TRIBUNAL, PROCESS IN QUESTION HELD TO BE A MANUFACTURING PROCESS U/S

2(f) OF THE ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED - S.2(f)(i) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - GUJARAT INDUSTRIES & ORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I 208

COMMISSIONER

REASSESSMENT – COMMISSIONER -NON SPEAKING ORDER – PERMISSION BY COMMISSIONER –

LETTER MENTIONING GROUNDS OF REASSESSMENT SENT TO COMMISSIONER BY OFFICER - ORDER

PASSED BY COMMISSIONER GRANTING PERMISSION FOR REASSESSMENT – CHALLENGE TO ORDER SO

PASSED ON GROUNDS OF BEING NON SPEAKING – HELD:ORDER PASSED REFLECTS AS GROUNDS

BEING APPROVED AFTER CONSIDERATION THEREBY GRANTING PERMISSION FOR AMENDMENT –

REQUIREMENT OF DETAILED ORDER NOT THERE IN VIEW OF S.29(7) OF THE ACT – READING OF

LETTER SENT BY OFFICER ALONGWITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE

ORDER IS PASSED AFTER WELL CONSIDERATION OF GROUNDS AND PERMISSION IS DULY GRANTED –

ORDER CANNOT BE TREATED AS NON SPEAKING – APPEAL IS DISMISSED- S. 29(7) OF PVAT ACT,

2005 - JALANDHAR ENGINEERING CO. VS STATE OF PUNJAB 424

CONCEALMENT OF FACTS

WRIT - DELAY AND LACHES – CONCEALMENT OF FACTS – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL

GRANTING EIGHT WEEKS TIME FOR PREDEPOSIT – WRIT FILED AGAINST THE ORDER – WRIT

DISMISSED GRANTING A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH TO MAKE PREDEPOSIT- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

THE DIRECTION RESULTING IN DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – FOUR YEARS

SUBSEQUENT TO DISMISSAL , WRIT FILED AGAIN SEEKING SAME RELIEF CONCEALING THE FACTUM

OF PREVIOUS WRIT FILED ON SAME GROUNDS – PRESENT WRIT PETITION DISMISSED FOR

CONCEALMENT OF FACTUM OF FILING OF WRIT PREVIOUSLY - PETITIONER DENIED ANY RELIEF

UNDER THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION THEREBY – ARTICLE 226/227 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION - GILAN INTEL CABLES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER 335

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


CONDONATION OF DELAY





APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF APPELLANT - DISMISSAL OF FIRST APPEAL ON

31/5/2011 – FILING OF APPEAL AFTER MORE THAN THREE YEARS – CONDONATION SOUGHT ON

BASIS OF ALLEGED INJURY AND HEALTH PROBLEM OF APPELLANT IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS – HELD

NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PRODUCED TO SHOW ALLEGED ILLNESS – CASUAL APPROACH ON PART

OF APPELLANT – EXPLANATION TENDERED IS NOT REASONABLE AND GENUINE – APPEAL DISMISSED

– S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SATPAL SURINDER KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB 385

APPEAL – CONDONATION OF DELAY – ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – GOODS IN TRANSIT APPREHENDED –

PENALTY IMPOSED BY AETC– DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR DELAYED FILING – APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL – CONTENTION RAISED THAT DELAY OCCURRED DUE TO SERIOUS ILLNESS OF

APPELLANT‟S ADVOCATE FOLLOWED BY HIS DEATH – HELD APPELLANT ALWAYS FOUND GUILTY OF

WILFUL NEGLECT – ENTRY TAX NOT PAID - NON APPEARANCE BEFORE PENALIZING OFFICER

DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES OBSERVED – NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS – NO EFFORT

MADE TO FILE APPEAL INSPITE OF THE KNOWING FULLY ABOUT ILLNESS OF ADVOCATE – APPEAL

FILED TWO MONTHS POST EXPIRY OF COUNSEL - CASUAL APPROACH TAKEN TO GAIN TIME –

ADMISSION REGARDING NOT INFORMING AT ICC TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – DELAY NOT CONDONED -

APPEAL DISMISSED – S.64 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - BHAWANI INDUSTRIES LTD VS STATE OF PUNJAB 389









DECLARATION FORMS

ASSESSMENT - DECLARATION FORMS – WHETHER PRODUCTION AT APPELLATE STAGE

PERMISSIBLE – ASSESSMENT FRAMED RAISING DEMAND – APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIGH COURT

SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE THE REQUIRED DECLARATION FORMS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

– PERMISSION TO PRODUCE THE FORMS BEFORE ASSESSING AUTHORITY GRANTED IN VIEW OF AN

EARLIER JUDGMENT – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – RULE 28B OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA 272

E -RETURNS - DECLARATION FORMS - INACTION ON PART OF DEPARTMENT – FORMS VAT R-6 AND

VAT R-8 GIVEN ON OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR FILING OF RETURNS – WEBSITE PERMITTING PAYMENT

OF TAX @ 5.25% FOR LUMPSUM WORKS CONTRACTOR BEING A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE –

REPRESENTATION FILED FOR DELETION OF THIS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT – NO RESPONSE GIVEN

BY RESPONDENT- WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE REPRESENTATION WITHIN

THE TIME SPECIFIED- WRIT DISPOSED OF - TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, HISAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 326




SGA LAW – 2015 Q4







SALE TO REGISTERED DEALER – BURDEN OF PROOF – DECLARATION FORM ST XXII –DEMAND

RAISED AFTER FIVE YEARS OF ASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF INGENUINE ST XXII FORMS – MATTER

REMITTED BY TRIBUNAL FOR REASSESSMENT AND DETAILED ENQUIRY BY DEPARTMENT – DEMAND

RAISED AGAIN FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND DENIAL BY PURCHASER OR NON

APPEARANCE BY THEM –SELLING DEALER CONTENDED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF

PROOF - SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – HELD: ONCE FORMS SUBMITTED ONUS STANDS

SHIFTED UPON DEPARTMENT - INABILITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS DUE TO LONG GAP NOT TO BE

COUNTED AGAINST APPELLANT – FORMS WITH MERE ABSENCE OF SIGNATURES OF ISSUING

AUTHORITY BUT BEARING GOVERNMENT SEAL CONSIDERED LEGAL – DENIAL BY PURCHASERS

REGARDING ISSUING OF SAID FORMS IMMATERIAL AS APPELLANT NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS

EXAMINE HIM - DEPARTMENT IN POSSESSION OF WHOLE RECORD THEREBY MEANING ONUS SHIFTED

ON DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THEIR CASE – APPEAL ACCEPTED ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS AS PER

ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED – S.5(2)(a)(ii) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PATIALA AUTO ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF PUNJAB 376

DELAY OF LACHES

WRIT - DELAY AND LACHES – CONCEALMENT OF FACTS – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY TRIBUNAL

GRANTING EIGHT WEEKS TIME FOR PREDEPOSIT – WRIT FILED AGAINST THE ORDER – WRIT

DISMISSED GRANTING A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH TO MAKE PREDEPOSIT- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

THE DIRECTION RESULTING IN DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – FOUR YEARS

SUBSEQUENT TO DISMISSAL , WRIT FILED AGAIN SEEKING SAME RELIEF CONCEALING THE FACTUM

OF PREVIOUS WRIT FILED ON SAME GROUNDS – PRESENT WRIT PETITION DISMISSED FOR

CONCEALMENT OF FACTUM OF FILING OF WRIT PREVIOUSLY - PETITIONER DENIED ANY RELIEF

UNDER THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION THEREBY – ARTICLE 226/227 OF INDIAN

CONSTITUTION - GILAN INTEL CABLES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER 335

DEVELOPER










e-ICC




SGA LAW – 2015 Q4









ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE

ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE – POTATO CHIPS – PROCESSED VEGETABLES – MANUFACTURING OF POTATO

CHIPS AND PROCESSED COMMODITIES- TAX PAID @ 4% FROM 1.4.2005 TO 31.10.2007

CONSIDERING THE ITEM TO BE FALLING UNDER SCHEDULE B- ASSESSING AUTHORITY CHARGED

TAX @ 12.5 % HOLDING IT AS FALLING UNDER SCHEDULE F – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL

DISMISSED HOLDING SUCH ITEM TO BE BEYOND ENTRY 88 OF SCHEDULE B IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT

DATED 31.10.2007 – ON APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT, HELD THAT POTATO CHIPS INCLUDED IN

SCHEDULE B PRIOR TO SAID AMENDMENT – EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE B POST AMENDMENT –

COMMODITY TO BE TAXED UNDER SCHEDULE B @ 4% FOR THE PERIOD BEFORE AMENDMENT –

APPEAL ACCEPTED- SCHEDULE B, ENTRY 88 OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 240

ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE – MOBILE CHARGERS - WHETHER PART OF CELL PHONES – HELD: NO –

MOBILE CHARGERS SOLD IN A COMPOSITE PACK ALONG WITH THE CELL PHONES ARE ACCESSORIES

AND NOT PART OF CELLPHONES- TO BE TAXED UNDER SCHEDULE F INSTEAD OF SCHEDULE B OF

THE PVAT ACT – JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT FOLLOWED- PETITION DISMISSED – ENTRY 60(6) (g)

OF SCHEDULE B AND SCHEDULE F OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LIMITED VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 281

ENTRIES IN SCHEDULE – INSECTICIDES/ PESTICIDES – COMPANY MANUFACTURING CONCENTRATED

FORM OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS – CLARIFICATION SOUGHT PLEADING SUCH CHEMICALS ARE

PESTICIDES AND WEEDICIDES TO BE COVERED UNDER ENTRY 38B OF THE SCHEDULE – CONTENTION

RAISED BY STATE THAT SUCH CHEMICAL HAS TO BE IN A MARKETABLE STATE TO BE DIRECTLY USED

FOR PLANTS TO QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION – ANSWER GIVEN AGAINST APPLICANT - APPEAL BEFORE

TRIBUNAL – HELD: GOODS IN QUESTION ARE TECHNICAL GRADES IN CONCENTRATED FORM AND

AFTER DILUTION BY ADDING INERTS ARE USED FOR PLANTS AND ARE COVERED UNDER THE SAID

ENTRY – APPEAL BY STATE CONTENDING THAT ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND NOT DIRECTLY

SELLING FINAL PRODUCTS AND THUS GOODS IN QUESTION BEING INTERMEDIATE GOODS DO NOT

QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION - HELD: OBSERVATION OF TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT – SAID GOODS FALL

UNDER ENTRY 38B OF SCHEDULE B OF HVAT ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED ON MERITS - ENTRY 38B

OF SCHEDULE B OF HVAT ACT - STATE OF HARYANA VS OM PESTICIDES 315

ENTRY TAX








SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


e-RETURNS

E -RETURNS - DECLARATION FORMS - INACTION ON PART OF DEPARTMENT – FORMS VAT R-6 AND

VAT R-8 GIVEN ON OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR FILING OF RETURNS – WEBSITE PERMITTING PAYMENT

OF TAX @ 5.25% FOR LUMPSUM WORKS CONTRACTOR BEING A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE –

REPRESENTATION FILED FOR DELETION OF THIS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT – NO RESPONSE GIVEN

BY RESPONDENT- WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE REPRESENTATION WITHIN

THE TIME SPECIFIED- WRIT DISPOSED OF - TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, HISAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 326

ESCAPE ROUTE











EVASION OF TAX

CHECK POST/ ROAD SIDE CHECKING – EVASION OF TAX - F.I.R. – QUASHING OF – GOODS IN

TRANSIT APPREHENDED –ABSENCE OF BILL OR PAYMENT OF TAX – F.I.R. LODGED U/S 420 OF IPC -

PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 56(c) OF PVAT ACT – AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY PETITIONER AND GOODS

VEHICLE RELEASED THEREAFTER – QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS QUA THE SAME OFFENCE

PRAYED FOR – PETITION ALLOWED TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN THE GIVEN

CIRCUMSTANCES – S 420 I.P.C; S. 56(C) OF PVAT ACT, 2005 - PRERNA STRIPS VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 219

EXCISE DUTY

EXCISE DUTY – MANUFACTURE – GI PAPER – WHETHER PRINTING PROCESS ON GI PAPER

CONSIDERED „MANUFACTURING‟ - DUTY PAID GI PAPER USED FOR WRAPPING PURCHASED FOR

PRINTING – PRINTING PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY APPELLANT AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OF

CUSTOMERS/ COMPANIES LIKE PRINTING OF LOGO AND NAME- EXCISE DUTY DEMANDED BY

AUTHORITY TERMING SUCH PRINTING PROCESS AS „MANUFACTURE‟ U/S 2(F) OF THE CENTRAL

EXCISE ACT, 1944 – APPEAL ACCEPTED BY TRIBUNAL HOLDING PRINTING PROCESS AS BEING

INCIDENTAL NOT CHANGING PRIMARY USE OF THE PRODUCT – APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE

SUPREME COURT – HELD: –TEST OF „NO COMMERCIAL USER WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESS‟ APPLIED

- END USE AFTER PRINTING CONFINED TO ONLY THAT PARTICULAR AND SPECIFIC PRODUCT OF THE

SAID CUSTOMER AND NOT GENERAL CUSTOMER - PRINTING NOT MERELY A VALUE ADDITION BUT

TRANSFORMATION FROM GENERAL WRAPPING TO SPECIAL WRAPPING PAPER, THEREBY CHANGING

THE END USE IN PRESENT CASE – TRANSFORMATION OF ARTICLE AND SUBSEQUENT BRINGING OF

DISTINCTIVE USE OF THE ARTICLE BROUGHT ABOUT BRINGING THE PROCESS UNDER THE DEFINITION

OF „MANUFACTURE‟- APPEAL ACCEPTED - S. 2(f) OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV VS FITRITE PACKERS 84

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


REBATE - EXCISE DUTY – EXPORT GOODS - SCOPE OF RULE 18 – EXCISE DUTY PAID ON BOTH

INTERMEDIATE GOODS AND FINAL PRODUCT MEANT FOR EXPORT – REBATE CLAIMED ON BOTH

DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT REBATE ALLOWED ONLY ON ONE OF THE TWO PRODUCTS AS

PER RULE 18 – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – HELD: PREVIOUS NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED

UNDER ENABLING PROVISION OF RULE 18 PROVIDE FOR REBATE OF WHOLE OF DUTY PAID ON

EXCISABLE GOODS USED IN MANUFACTURE AS WELL AS FINAL PRODUCT EXPORTED – PURPOSE OF

ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED BY RESTRICTING RULE 18 TO PROVIDE REBATE ON ONLY ONE TYPE OF

PRODUCT – PREVIOUS NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE SAID RULE CLEARLY SHOW PROCEDURE

TO CLAIM REFUND ON BOTH TYPES OF GOODS (INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL) ON WHICH DUTY HAS

BEEN PAID – THE WORD „OR‟ IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS „AND‟ IN RULE 18 AND REBATE IS TO BE

ALLOWED ON BOTH EXCISABLE GOODS MEANT FOR EXPORT – APPEAL ACCEPTED – RULE 18 AND 19

OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. 161
















COLD ROLLING – PROCESS OF – MANUFACTURE - EXCISE DUTY- COLD -ROLLING OF HOT- ROLLED

STAINLESS STEEL PATTIS TAKEN UP ON JOB WORK – EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID- DEMAND RAISED

CONSIDERING IT AS „MANUFACTURING‟ PROCESS‟- ORDER UPHELD BY COMMISSIONER REFERRING

TO HSN EXPLANATORY NOTES CONTENDING THAT SUCH PROCESS BRINGS ABOUT DISTINCT

CHARACTERISTICS, USE, IDENTITY AND NAME THEREBY RENDERING IT AS A NEW COMMODITY AND

CAPABLE OF BEING MARKETED– ORDER CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL AS THE PROCESS HARDENS THE

PRODUCT ENTAILING IT NEW CHARACTERISTICS – APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT – BASED ON

THE VIEW GIVEN BY TRIBUNAL, PROCESS IN QUESTION HELD TO BE A MANUFACTURING PROCESS U/S

2(f) OF THE ACT – APPEAL DISMISSED - S.2(f)(i) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 - GUJARAT INDUSTRIES & ORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-I 208

LIMITATION – NOTICE- EXCISE DUTY- PROCESSING ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN FOR PERIOD 1995-97 –

EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID – NOTICE SERVED DATED 15 MAY, 2000 – CONTENTION RAISED THAT

ASSESSEE UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN DID NOT AMOUNT TO

MANUFACTURE AND THAT EXCISE DUTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE – INVOKING OF S.11 A THEREBY

EXTENDING PERIOD OF LIMITATION APPEALED AGAINST – ORDER OF COMMISSIONER REFLECTED

DUE KNOWLEDGE ON PART OF APPELLANT REGARDING THE SAID ACTIVITY BEING DUTIABLE

THEREBY OBSERVING CONNIVANCE ON PART OF APPELLANT -APPEAL DISMISSED BY APEX COURT IN

VIEW OF OBSERVATION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW THEREBY VALIDATING THE SERVICE OF IMPUGNED

NOTICE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD – S.11A OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT,1994 - MANOJ KUMAR KANSAL VS STATE OF HARYANA 208

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


REFUND – EXCISE DUTY – LIMITATION- PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM – EXCISE DUTY PAID UNDER

MISTAKEN BELIEF – REFUND CLAIM DENIED BEING TIME BARRED – APPEALS DISMISSED – WRIT

FILED CONTENDING THAT DUTY PAID WAS UNDER MISTAKE AND SHOULD BE REFUNDED AS IT WERE

OTHERWISE RECOVERED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW – REFUND NOT VALID IN VIEW OF RULE 11

OF THE RULES AS CLAIM OUGHT TO BE FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM DATE OF

PAYMENT – NO REFUND UNDER RULE 173J ALLOWED IN VIEW OF FINDING OF TRIBUNAL

INDICATING ABSENCE OF MATERIAL SHOWING CLEARANCES BEING EFFECTED WITHIN TIME EVEN IF

ONE YEAR IS TO BE COUNTED – WRIT PETITION DISMISSED – RULE 11 AND RULE 173J OF CENTRAL

EXCISE RULES, 1944 - GUPTA STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 285

CLANDESTINE REMOVAL- EXCISE DUTY- SEARCH AT FACTORY PREMISES – SHORTAGE OF STOCK

ADMITTED BY APPELLANT -CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS CONCLUDED AND DEMAND RAISED –

ORDER OF ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER AS NO EVIDENCE FOUND

CONCLUDING CLANDESTINE REMOVAL – LACK OF ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD – RECORD OF ASSESEE

NOT SCRUTINIZED – METHOD OF STOCK POSITION VERIFICATION DOUBTED – BENEFIT OF DOUBT

EXTENDED BY COMMISSIONER TO ASSESSEE – ORDER UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT

NO INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF BUYERS OR SUPPLIERS OF RAW

MATERIAL TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION – NO PERVERSITY FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY HIGH

COURT – APPEAL DISMISSED – S. 11A AND 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT; RULE 25 OF

CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002; RULE 15 OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VS ANAND FOUNDERS & ENGINEERS 332

EXCISE DUTY – SSI EXEMPTION –CLUBBING OF TWO UNITS FOR ESTIMATING CLEARANCES-

FACTORY PREMISES OF FIRM A SEARCHED - CONCLUSION DRAWN REGARDING FIRM A AND

APPELLANT FIRM HAVING JOINTLY CROSSED THE DUTY EXEMPTION LIMIT AVAILABLE TO SSI UNITS

– DEMAND RAISED AGAINST BOTH RESPONDENT UNITS BY CLUBBING THEIR CLEARANCES – ORDER

SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT UNLESS APPELLANT UNIT WAS PROVED TO BE A

DUMMY UNIT, CLUBBING OF CLEARANCES NOT PERMITTED – APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE

TRIBUNAL DISMISSED HOLDING THAT TWO UNITS WERE SEPARATE - APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT

ALLEGING TWO UNITS IN QUESTION TO BE ONE ON THE BASIS OF HAVING COMMON RAW MATERIAL,

TELEPHONE, ELECTRICITY CONNECTION, ACCOUNTANT OFFICE - HELD : FINDINGS BY

COMMISSIONER AND TRIBUNAL BASED ON FACTS AND NOT SHOWN PERVERSE BY REVENUE-

APPEAL DISMISSED - S. 6 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944; R. 9 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE

RULES, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS SARON MECHANICAL WORKS 345

MEDICAL AND TOILET PREPARATIONS CONTAINING LIQUOR -WHETHER EXCISE DUTY IS LEVIABLE

UNDER THE ACT OF 1944 – EXCISE DUTY ALREADY PAID UNDER THE MEDICINAL AND TOILET

PREPARATIONS (EXCISE DUTY) ACT, 1955 - DEMAND RAISED UNDER THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT,

1944 DESPITE EXEMPTION BEING GRANTED ON SAID GOODS – WRIT FILED CONTENDING PAYING

EXCISE DUTY UNDER THE ACT OF 1944 WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION – MATTER

REMANDED TO DECIDE AFRESH CONSIDERING THE POINT OF DOUBLE TAXATION - MEDICINAL AND

TOILET PREPARATIONS (EXCISE DUTY) ACT, 1955 - JBJ PERFUMES PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 351

EXERCISE OF POWER BY OFFICER OF SAME RANK AS

ASSESSING OFFICER

REVISION – REVISIONAL AUTHORITY – EXERCISE OF POWER BY OFFICER OF SAME RANK AS

ASSESSING OFFICER – ASSESSMENT FRAMED – NOTICE FOR REVISION ISSUED BY OFFICER OF SAME

RANK AS OFFICER HAVING DONE ASSESSMENT IN INSTANT CASE – WRIT FILED- HELD: POWER OF

REVISION NOT TO BE EXERCISED BY OFFICER OF SAME RANK – NOTICES SET ASIDE – LIBERTY

GRANTED TO STATE TO PROCEED AFRESH U/S 40 – S.40(2) OF HGST ACT, 1973 - PRAKASH PIPES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 269

SGA LAW – 2015 Q4


EXEMPTION
















ADVANCE TAX – EXEMPTION – APPLICATION FILED FOR RENEWAL – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM

RESPONDENT - WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER DECIDING

THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY PETITIONER WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED – S.6(7) OF PVAT ACT,

2005 - SHAKTI MITTAL CONTRACTOR VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHER 221

EXEMPTION – EXEMPTED UNIT – WHETHER PURCHASE TAX IS ADJUSTABLE AGAINST THE NOTIONAL

TAX LIABILITY – EXEMPTED UNIT – RETURNS FILED – DISALLOWANCE OF ADJUSTMENT OF

PURCHASE TAX AGAINST THE NOTIONAL TAX LIABILITY BY REVISIONAL AUTHORITY – ORDER

UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL – APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT – HELD: BENEFICIARY UNIT IS ENTITLED TO

EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF SALES TAX ON SALE OF FINISHED PRODUCTS AND NOT EXEMPTED

FROM PAYMENT OF PURCHASE TAX IN TERMS OF RULE 28B(3)(j) OF THE HGST RULES- NO

PERVERSITY FOUND IN ORDER OF TRIBUNAL – APPEAL DISPOSED OF – RULE 28B(3)(j) - RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA 272

ASSESSMENT – EXEMPTION – EXEMPTED UNIT – EXPORT – EXPORT UNIT ENJOYING EXEMPTION-

RICE EXPORTED OUT OF PADDY PURCHASED- ANNUAL STATEMENT FILED - LEVY OF PURCHASE TAX

ON PADDY BY ASSESSING AUTHORITY – DISALLOWANCE OF ITC ON ONE HAND AND REVERSAL OF

ITC ON OTHER HAND – APPEAL DISMISSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT PASSING

SPEAKING ORDER – APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL – MATTER REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING

AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER – S.13, S.19 OF

PVAT ACT, 2005 - KATARIA RICE MILLS VS STATE OF PUNJAB 419

EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE

EXEMPTED UNIT - EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE – AMALGAMATION – AMALGAMATION OF TWO

EXISTING EXEMPTED UNITS AS PER AMALGAMATION SCHEME – LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER TO

TRANSFER BENEFITS OF THE OTHER COMPANY TO ITS COMPANY U/R 28B OF HGST RULES IN VIEW

OF AMALGAMATION – NO RESPONSE RECEIVED – WRIT FILED – RESPONDENT DIRECTED TO TAKE A

DECISION ON THE LETTERS SENT BY THE PETITIONER REGARDING ISSUANCE OF AMENDED

ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE WITHIN THE PERIOD SO SPECIFIED – WRIT DISPOSED OF - RULE 28B (10-

C)OF HGST RULES, 1975 - RISHAB FARMS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 257

sgalaw.insgalaw.in/image/SGA_COMPOSITE_NEWSLETTER_Issue19.pdf · SGA LAW – 2015 Q4 (October...

Documents

Transcript of sgalaw.insgalaw.in/image/SGA_COMPOSITE_NEWSLETTER_Issue19.pdf · SGA LAW – 2015 Q4 (October...