VAT
UP VAT Act | Definition Of “Goods” Under Sec. 2(m) And Sec. 13(1)(f) Includes Taxable As Well As Exempted Goods: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the definition of “Goods” under Section 2(m) of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“UP VAT Act”) includes both taxable as well as exempted goods. Similarly, the word “goods” under Section 13(1)(f) of the UP VAT Act cannot be said to be qualified by the word “taxable”.The Bench comprising the Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, has held that the legislative intent behind the 2010 amendment to the UP VAT...
UP VAT Act | Assessee Entitled To Claim Full Input Tax Credit On Exempted Goods Produced As By-Products Or Waste Products During Manufacturing Of Taxable Goods : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while relying on Explanation (iii) to Section 13 of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“UP VAT Act”), has held that if during the manufacture of any taxable good any tax exempted goods are produced as by-product/waste product, then it shall be deemed that the goods purchased from within the State for such manufacturing have been used in manufacture of taxable goods alone. Thus, the Assessee would be entitled to claim full benefit of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) in respect of...
UPVAT | Exemption/Concession Form Not Produced During Assessment Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, Can Be Considered By Tribunal: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that if a form through which exemption/concession has been claimed under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not be produced at the time of assessment due to unavoidable circumstances, the same can be produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is bound to consider it before passing any order.The bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held,“The transaction already claimed by the applicant as exempt/concession rate of tax in its hand, the form,...
UPVAT Act | Family Entitled To Insurance Money Under Group Insurance Policy If Registration Valid On Date Of Death Of Registered Dealer: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that if registration under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was subsisting on the day of his death, his family would be entitled to insurance claim under the Group Insurance Policy.The bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Surendra Singh-I held“If the deceased held a registration certificate prior to the occurrence of his death and that registration did not stand cancelled on the date of occurrence of his death, the status of the deceased...
State Amendments Made To VAT Acts After GST Came Into Effect Are Invalid : Supreme Court
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the appeals arising from judgments of Telangana, Gujarat and Bombay High Court with respect to the validity of VAT Amendment Act in their respective states, made several significant findings regarding Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act (Amendment), 2016, which allowed the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax.Inter-alia, the issue was about the legislative competence of the State enactments after 01.07.2017 i.e. beyond...
‘Kurkure’ And ‘Cheetos’ Classifiable As ‘Namkeen’, Not ‘Snacks’ Under VAT Act: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that ‘Kurkure’ and ‘Cheetos’ are classifiable as ‘namkeen’, not 'snacks' under the VAT Act.The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the department neither sought any technical or expert opinion nor brought any evidence on record to prove their point. It appears that the Tax Board merely relied on a basic Google search result wherein the goods, namely ‘Kurkure’ and 'Cheetos', were described as Namkeen snacks.The petitioner-assessee is in the sale of various...
UP VAT | Burden To Prove Purchase From Registered Dealer On Assesee: Allahabad High Court
In a revision preferred by the Tax Department, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that purchases were made from registered dealer lies on the Assesee claiming the same. The Department cannot be made to discharge a negative burden to prove that the sales were made from unregistered dealers. Perusing Section 16 (Burden of Proof) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, bench comprising of Justice Piyush Agrawal held,“It is evidently clear that the burden of proof...
KVAT Act | Tax Doesn't Apply To Transfer Of Goods But To Transfer Of 'Right To Use' Goods: Kerala High Court
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court recently held that the tax under the KVAT Act applied not to the transfer of goods but to the transfer of the right to use goods.A division bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias CP added that the taxable event occurs when the contract for goods delivery is executed, irrespective of whether the transfer is exclusive."...in a contract for the transfer of the right to use the goods, the taxable event is the execution...
Patna High Court Orders Railways To Refund Illegal VAT Deduction from Contractors' Bills
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has directed the Indian Railways to refund an amount of Rs. 38,22,897 to PCM Cement Concrete Pvt. Ltd., following an illegal VAT deduction made from the bills of the contractor.The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy held, “The transaction was purely of an inter-state sale of goods and is not a works contract nor a sale of goods eligible to tax within the State of Bihar. The sale of goods as per Annexure-2 and...
Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 Defies The Doctrine Of Separation Of Powers: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020, is an impermissible judicial override defying the doctrine of separation of powers.The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande has observed that by simply not issuing sanction orders or delaying the issue of sanctions indefinitely or unreasonably, the state cannot arbitrarily deprive the parties' interests by way of compensation. A deprivation would fall foul of Articles 14, 265, and...
Mortein Spray, Harpic & Lizol Cleaner- Not Classifiable as ‘Insecticide’ Under KVAT; Dettol A 'Medicament': Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari has ruled that Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) of the 3rd Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT), 2003 as ‘insecticides’.While observing that Entry 44(5) of the 3rd Schedule to the Act is a general entry, the bench observed that the said products would fall under Sl.No.66 and 27(4) of...
VAT Act, Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Dept. To Refund Pre-Deposit With 6% Interest
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state/commercial tax department to refund the pre-deposit amount paid during the appeal with 6% interest to the assessee.The division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta has observed that even though there is no provision for payment of interest on the refund of amounts so collected under the VAT Act, the petitioner would be eligible for 6% interest per annum w.e.f. April 17, 2017, until the date of...