Advanced Search Results

Act1: value added tax act 2003 section 78 · Page 1 of about 873 results (0.162 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

Feb 10 2011

The Asst. Commissioner or Commercial Taxes, Bangalore and Others Vs. M ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-10-2011

Subject : MRTP

made locally in some other state; octroi not to be set off against output tax, etc., Under the Value Added Tax Act, issue of invoice would be mandatory. No set off/input credit would be allowed unless the original tax invoice … on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, allowing the appeal filed under Section 72(1) of KVAT Act 2003.) 1. All these appeals are preferred by the State, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge … TAXES OFFICER reported in (2007) 9 VST 1 (SC) held as under:- “There is dichotomy between contravention of Section 78(2) of the said Act which invites strict civil liability on the assessee and the evasion of tax. When

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 02 2009

Philips Electronics India Ltd. Reptd. by Its Manager - Corporate Fisca ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-02-2009

Subject : Sales Tax/VAT

Acts : Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 2(12), 3, 4, 9, 9(2), 10, 12(1), 22, 22(1), 22(5) to 22(9), 23, 28, 29, 29(1), 30, 30(1), 30(2), 31, 32, 33, 35, 35(1), 36, 38, 38(3), 39, 40, 42, 52, 52(1), 53, 53(4), 55(1), 71 to 77 and 79; Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; Assam General Sales Tax Act 1993; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Sections 78(5); Banking Companies Act; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1) and 19(6)

Reported in : 2009(3)AIRKarR1; AIR2009NOC2187

Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, the Act and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have … Supreme Court in the case reported in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer 9 VST 1, wherein Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, an analogous provision to Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 02 2009

Government of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Financ ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-02-2009

Subject : ConstitutionSales Tax/VAT

Acts : Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 2(12), 3, 4, 9, 9(1), 9(2) to 9(4), 10, 22, 22(1), 22(5) to (9), 23, 28, 29, 29(1), 30, 30(1), 30(2), 31, 32, 33, 35, 35(1), 36, 37, 38(3), 39, 40, 42, 52, 52(1), 52(2), 53, 53(4), 55(1), 71 to 77 and 79(1); Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2005; Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2006; Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2007; Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2008; Karnataka Value Added Tax Rule; Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Sections 78(5); Banking Companies Act; Constitution of India - Articles 14 19, 19(1) and 19(6)

Reported in : ILR2009KAR633

Writ petitioners are all persons who are dealers as the expression occurs in Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, the Act] and also dealers who are registered under Section 22 of the Act.2. Petitioners have … Supreme Court in the case reported in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer 9 VST 1 wherein Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, an analogous provision to Sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Try free for 7 days How AI Brief works

Jul 29 2022

State of Kerala vs Raphael.T.Joseph

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-29-2022

dated 5.3.2018 in T.A.(VAT) No.564 of 2014 and Cross Objection Nos.2 of 2016 and batch of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The issue arises under Section 25 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act,2003. The Tribunal through … SHRI.AKHIL SURESH SMT.T.ARCHANA THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2022, ALONG WITH OT.Rev.75/2018, 78/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.T.Revision Nos.84 of 2018 & conn.cases

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 29 2022