10:00 - 5:30

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

   

    

+91-9417311987

Call Us For Free Consultation

 

Judgments

RATTAN ADVOCATES | > Judgments

Consideration Pre-Deposit by PVAT Tribunal after the Amendment period i.e. 17-8-2011

Before Justice M.M.S Bedi , Chairman, Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Punjab   Appeal No. 25 of 2020 Date of Decision :13.03.2020 Assessment Year 2012-13 M/s Larson International Pvt. Ltd,26 The Mall, Amritsar …Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent   Present:          Sh. Simarpreet Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma , Additional Advocate General for the State. Order  On account of appellant having not been able to make a pre-deposit of 25% of additional demand under Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act, 2005 despite having been given an Opportunity, the First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 08.01.2020. Counsel for the Appellant when confronted with the judgment of M/s Technimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (2019) 69 GSTR 193 SC decided on 18-09-2019 wherein it has been laid down that the First Appellate Authority has got no jurisdiction to waive of any part of pre-deposit of 25%, Counsel for the Appellant has come forward with a new plea of adjustment of input tax credit from the proceedings tax period (for the Year 2014-15) without expression of any opinion whether the provision of Section 15 would apply in peculiar circumstances of this case, this appeal is dismissed. However, a period of two months time is granted to...

Continue reading

Consideration of Pre-Deposit by PVAT Tribunal as existed prior to the date of Amendment i.e. 17-8-2011

Before Justice M.M.S Bedi , Chairman, Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Punjab   Appeal No. 15 of 2020 Date of Decision :11.02.2020 Assessment Year 2010-11 M/s J.S. Nagpal Enterprises, Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar …Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent   Present:          Dr. Naveen Rattan , Advocate with Mrs. Kanika Sharma, ITP for the Appellant Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma , Additional Advocate General for the State. Order  Aggrieved by the assessment made for the financial year 2010-11 under CST Act, a liability of Rs. 299,644/-  was imposed. The appellant was required to pay 25% of the said tax  due for consideration of appeal on merits. The appellant will deposit 25% of tax due within a period of one month and seek consideration of the appeal on merits. In case of any controversy regarding working of 25%  is involved. The provision of section 62(5) as existing prior to the date of amendment date 17.08.2011 would be applicable. Disposed off. ----Sd/---- Chairman 11.02.2020                                                                                        VAT Appellate Tribunal  ...

Continue reading

Consideration of Pre-Deposit by PVAT Tribunal

Before Justice M.M.S Bedi , Chairman, Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Punjab   Appeal No. 14 of 2020 Date of Decision :11.02.2020 Assessment Year 2010-11 M/s J.S. Nagpal Enterprises, Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar …Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present:          Dr. Naveen Rattan , Advocate with Mrs. Kanika Sharma, ITP for the Appellant Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma , Additional Advocate General for the State. Order  On account of non-deposit 25% of the tax due, the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. The Tax Liability pertains to financial year 2010-11 as such it will be governed by the provisions of Section 62(5) as it existed prior to the amendment dated 17.08.2011. Let the appeal make deposit of 25% of the tax due within a period of month after making calculations as per the order in M/s J.R. Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Ubhawal Road, District Sangrur decided on 06.12.2019. In case the Appellant doing so the appeal will be heard by the First Appellate Authority within a period of One Month, this appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed. Disposed off. ----Sd/---- Chairman 11.02.2020                                                                                        VAT Appellate Tribunal  ...

Continue reading

Judgment on Interest u/s 50 of CGST Act, 2017( Punjab and Haryana High Court)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH   CWP No. 11759 of 2020 Date of Decision:26.08.2020   M/s. B.G. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD..                                                                                           . . . Petitioners Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. . .                                                                                                  . . Respondents   CORAM:     HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA   Present: -       Dr. Naveen Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioners.   Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)   Case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the reply filed by the petitioners attached with the petition as Annexure P-7 has not been considered by the respondents. Counsel for respondents has submitted that if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents by this...

Continue reading

Supreme Court-Dispute of inheritance is a Civil Dispute-cannot be decided under Companies Act

The Supreme Court on 6 th July 2020 in the case of Aruna Oswalvs Pankaj Oswal has categorically held that dispute about inheritance of shares is a civil dispute and the same cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 241/ 242 of Companies Act, 2013. The brief facts of the case are that Late Abhey Kumar Oswal held  5,35,3,960 shares in M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., a listed company. He died on 29.3.2016 in Russia due to heart attack. He is survived by his wife, 2 sons and a married daughter. Before his death on 18.6.2015 Abhey Kumar Oswal filed a nomination according to section 72 of the Act in favour of Mrs.ArunaOswal, his wife which was duly attested by 2 witnesses. In the said nomination, it was explicitly provided that this nomination would supersede any prior nomination or testamentary document made by him. The name of his wife was duly registered as a holder on 16.4.2016 for the shares held by her deceased husband. Pankaj Oswal, the elder son of late Abhay Oswal filed a partition suit in the Civil Courts claiming entitlement to one­fourth of the estate of his father including the deceased’s shareholdings. The High Court vide order dated 8.2.2017...

Continue reading

S.69C: Bogus Purchases-Onus of proof

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1940 OF 2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai .. Appellant v/s. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Appellant. CORAM: UJJAL BHUYAN, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2020. ORAL ORDER (PER UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) :- . Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, learned standing counsel, revenue for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been fled by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai (“Tribunal” for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 794/Mum/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3. Revenue has preferred the appeal projecting the following questions as substantial questions of law : “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was justifed in holding that provisions of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable in case of bogus purchases or sales where the genuineness of the transaction is not explained or explanation ofered by the assessee is not satisfactory and the same is to be treated as income of the assessee ? (B) Whether on the facts and...

Continue reading

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