10:00 - 5:30

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

   

    

+91-9417311987

Call Us For Free Consultation

 

Author: Advocates

RATTAN ADVOCATES | > Articles posted by Advocates

Pre-Deposit under Punjab VAT Act, 2005

BEFORE JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL, CHAIRMAN, VALUE ADDED TAX, TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. Appeal no.116 of 2016 Decided on 29.09.2016 M/s Milton Exports, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar  Versus State of Punjab   Present:- Dr. Naveen Rattan, Advocate alongwith Mrs. Kanika Sharma, ITP for the appellant. Mr. N.K. Verma, Sr. Dy. Advocate General for the State.   Order  This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the first appellate authority, Amritsar Division Amritsar dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the provisions of section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The case relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The Designated Officer framed the assessment to the tune of Rs.83,53,624/- including Tax, Penalty and Interest against the appellant. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed for non-compliance of section 62(5) of the Act. Since the appellant has sought  to condone the delay. While arguing qua  the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has submitted that actually he was not served with the order passed by the deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. However, on the other hand, the department has submitted that the order was passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Amritsar Division Amritsar on 28.10.2014 and the copy of...

Continue reading

Service Tax Case

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL R.K PURAM ,WEST BLOCK No. 2,New Delhi-110066 COURT NO. I Date of hearing: 27.10.2015 Service Tax Misc. Application No. 52131/2015 Service Tax Appeal NoS. ST/60245-60248/2013 [Arising out of order in Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APR-436-(439)-13-14 dated 14/08/2013 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals) Custom & Central Excise, Chandigarh-I] For Approval and signature: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Hon’ble Shri C.J., Mathew, Member(Technical) 1. Whether Press reporter may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule  27  of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 For publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?   M/s Highway Tyres Pvt. Ltd Appellant Vs. C.C.E & S.T., Chandigarh-I Respondent Appearance: Dr.Navin Rattan, Advocate and     Ms. K Sharma for the Appellant   Shri Amresh Jain, DR of the respondent.   Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President     Hon’ble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)    Per C.J. Mathew The Appellant, M/s Highway Tyres, has filed ST/Misc/52131/2015 in main appeal ST/60245/2013 seeking early hearing. In accordance with the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 20th May, 2014 in STA No. 11/2014 for expeditious disposal and...

Continue reading

Grant of waiver of Pre-deposit under section 62(5) PVAT Act – An Analysis

Mandatory pre-deposit at the time of filing appeal: Sub clause 5 of Section 62 of Punjab VAT Act,2005 enunciates that no appeal shall be entertained unless such appeal is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the prior minimum payment of twenty five percent of the total amount of additional demand, penalty and interest, if any.  This provision was mandatory and every appellate authority under Punjab VAT Act, 2005. was reluctant to hear the appeal unless 25% of the total amount of additional demand, penalty and interest if any stands deposited. Majority of the appeals were dismissed on the ground of non-deposit of 25% without considering the merits of the case. It is a different matter that in case where the additional demand was time-barred or where the order of subordinate authority was void-ab-nitio, the appellate authority including High Court have entertained certain appeals without prior deposit of additional demand including penalty and interest. In some other cases where the appellant was entitled to the excess ITC, which was available for adjustment against the deposit of 25%, the appellate authority was also liberal to grant set off of excess ITC against the prior deposit of 25%.  More or less every appellate authority followed...

Continue reading

Mechanical Rejection of ITC under Punjab VAT Act

Under Section 13 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 the taxable person is allowed the credit of input tax against the output tax liability   as a matter of right. Very recently major problem has cropped up that designated officers under the Act, do not allow the credit of tax paid on the purchases by the taxable person in spite of the fact that he satisfies all the requirements of law. The claim of input tax credit is rejected mainly on the ground that selling dealer has not deposited the tax and sometimes certain sales are not reflected in his return or returns as the case may be, which he is expected to file in the normal course of business with the department. Technically it is called miss-matching of sale and purchase from the seller and purchaser. The return and record filed by such persons and enquiry made thereafter by the department, is also kept secret and on these bases the legitimate claim of input tax of the purchasing dealer is rejected in a mechanical manner without complying the principals of the natural justice. This further result into uncalled litigation in the court which consumes not only long span of time...

Continue reading