1. Time Limit for Production of F Forms Directory Not Mandatory

Section 6A(1) and Rule 12(7) indicates that the period of three months for production of statutory form can be extended and therefore it is not a mandatory provision making it obligatory upon the assessee to file the requisite forms within stipulated period of three months. Forms can be filed even after the expiry of period of three months. Further, application for extension of time for production of forms can be made even after expiry of three months. Declaration forms can be filed at any stage of proceedings which has to be considered by the authorities normally either by the Assessing Authority or by the Appellate Authority as the case may be.

(Source: Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP & Others, Writ Tax No. 896 of 2015, dated 18th November, 2015, 2016 NTN (Vol. 61)-93(All).

2. Attachment of Property of Wife of Karta of HUF to Recover Dues of HUF Not Legal

The property of the individual member of HUF could not be attached to recover dues of HUF u/s. 45 of The Gujarat VAT Act.

[Source: State of Gujarat v. Jwelly Tea Co., Tax Appeal No. 751 of 2015, dated 16th October 2015, 2016 NTN (Vol. 61) -118 (Guj.)].

3. Sale Price – Anti Dumping Duty Paid by Purchaser for Import of Components by Seller Forms Part of Sale Price of the Manufactured Goods

The antidumping duty actually became leviable from time of export of the goods from China into India, but was not collected due to the protective cover given by the SEZ Act, The moment goods went out of the cover, the duty automatically get attracted to the goods and hence it is
included in the sale price for the purpose of levy of vat.

[Source: Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, TCR No. 35 of 2014, dated 18th April, 2016, 2016-17 (22) TNCTJ 91 (Mad.)].

4. Sale – Replacement of Defective Compressor by Another One at a Differential Price is a Sale

The replacement of defective compressor by another compressor for a differential price, amounts to a sale and liable to vat. It is not a works contract but sale simpliciter.

(Source: M/s. Emerson Climate Technologies (I) Ltd. v. ACCT. Case No RN 818 of 2011, dated 7th September, 2015, (2016) 67 STA 311(WBTT)).

5. Entry Tax – Constitutional Validity

By majority the Supreme Court answers the reference in the following terms:

1. Taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. The word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”.

2. Only such taxes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Article 304(a). It follows that levy of a non-discriminatory tax would not constitute an infraction of Article 301.

3. Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 have to be read disjunctively.

4. A levy that violates 304(a) cannot be saved even if the procedure under Article 304(b) or the proviso thereunder is satisfied.

5. The compensatory tax theory evolved in Automobile Transport case and subsequently modified in Jindal’s case has no juristic basis and is therefore rejected.

6. Decisions of this Court in Atiabari, Automobile Transport and Jindal cases (supra) and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance overruled.

7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing State.

8. Article 304 (a) frowns upon discrimination (of a hostile nature in the protectionist sense) and not on mere differentiation. Therefore, incentives, set-offs etc. granted to a specified class of dealers for a limited period of time in a non-hostile fashion with a view to developing economically backward areas would not violate Article 304(a). The question whether the levies in the present case indeed satisfy this test is left to be determined by the regular benches hearing the matters.

9. States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations to ensure that the tax burden on goods imported from other States and goods produced within the State fall equally. Such measures if taken would not contravene Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The question whether the levies in the present case indeed satisfy this test is left to be determined by the regular benches hearing the matters.

10. The questions whether the entire State can be notified as a local area and whether entry tax can be levied on goods entering the landmass of India from another country are left open to be determined appropriate proceedings.

[Source: M/s. Jindal Stainless Ltd.& Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3453/2002, dated 11th November, 2016 SC)].

6. Rule for levy of luxury tax on which Vat Is charged – Ultra vires

The Delhi High Court has quashed Rule 3 of the Delhi Luxury Tax Rules which provided for levy of luxury tax on 60% of the bill amount charged by Banquet Halls as ultra vires the Act as VAT is charged on the consolidated amount. Henceforth, Luxury Tax on banquets is no longer leviable where VAT is paid on the entire consolidated charges.

[Source: Community Welfare Banquet Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 297/2013, dated 6th October, 2016, (Del.)].

Comments are closed.