1. Entries in the Schedule – ‘Vegetable Fat Spread’ (Product – Nutralite) – Not Edible Oil

Considering the ‘Market Parlance Test’, the questioned product (vegetable fat spread) is having separate marketability and different use hence cannot be said as same as that of the edible oil consequently it will be covered by residual entry.

[Source: 3F Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Karnataka …. [2017] 63 NTN DX 260 (Kar.)].

2. Input Tax Credit – Purchase Tax – Purchase from Unregistered Dealers – Tax deposited by dealer – Allowed

In case the revisionist is able to demonstrate before the authorities that a sum has been deposited by it towards purchase tax, in respect of transaction of purchase effected from questioned dealer, whose registration was cancelled then the concerned authority shall pass appropriate orders granting benefit of input tax credit to that extent.

[M/s. Prayag Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Noida v. C.C.T., U.P. Lucknow (2017) 63 NTN 266(All.)].

3. Input Tax Credit – Refund – to SEZ Units – Tax paid on purchases of mobile, drinking water and other electronic gadgets – Eligible

Items of the electronic gadgets or mobile or drinking water are required for the incidental activity of the principle object of manufacture or trading or production or processing or assembling or repairing or reconditioning or reengineering or packing. Hence, such would fall in the category of availability of input tax credit.

[Source: State of Karnataka v. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 63 NTN DX 255 (Kar.)].

4. Seizure – Detention of goods – Forms produced – Goods to be released

On the date of detention of goods, valid Form 38 produced by the petitioner – No ground for seizure – Goods seized be release .

[M/s. Ashirvad Steels v. State of U.P. And Another, [2017] 63 NTN DX 276(All.)]

5. Constitutional validity – Provision to levy tax on MRP – Ultra vires

In view of SC judgment in case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Rajasthan Chemist Association: [2006] 147 STC 542 (SC) wherein was held that the subject of tax in such legislation is not the goods or goods sold but a transaction of “sale of goods” as defined under the Sales of Goods Act and thus providing for measure of tax on the subject of tax by substituting any notional value like the MRP or otherwise, is beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature, sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Bihar Value Added Tax, 2005 providing for levy of tax on MRP is ultra vires.

[Source: M/s. Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. C.T.O., Patna, [2017] 63 NTN DX 269(Pat.)].

Comments are closed.