Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT41(SN)(C.No.43)
1. Constitutional validity of the newly introduced proviso to Section 8(a) (iiii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by the Finance Act 2007 (Act 15/2007) published in the official gazette of the State of Kerala dated 28.07.2007, taking away the benefit of the lesser rate of compounding, being availed by the petitioners with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005,is the main challenge in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35048 of 2007 is a company registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1958, while the petitioner in the other case i.e. W.P.(C) 860 of 2008 is a partnership firm registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Both the petitioners are construction contractors engaged in the business of construction of multi-storeyed residential complex and are assessees on the rolls of the second respondent, registered under the KGST Act, who got transposed as reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8966 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. -------M/s. Tata Sky Ltd., at Miracle Star Net Store, Plot No.17/10, Unit-VI, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, represented through its Managing Director and CEO, Sri Harit Nagpal Petitioner -VersusState of Orissa and others Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. Jagabandhu Sahoo D.Panda, P.Mohapatra & A. Mohapatra. For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.P. Kar, Standing Counsel (Revenue) ---------P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI V.GOPALA GOWDA AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment:24. 04.2012 B.N.MAHAPATRA,J.provisions In this writ petition, challenge has been made to certain of The Entertainment Tax Orissa Entertainment Act, 2006.), The Tax Act, 2006 Orissa (for Entertainment short, Tax (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for short, E.T. Amendment Act, 2010.) (Annexure5) and The Orissa Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (for short, E.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for wavier of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,09,34,411/-, interest and penalty. Demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the ground that the applicants were availing input service credit in respect of common input services and the same were used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods during the period from March, 2005 to November, 2008. 3. The contention of the applicant is that provisions of Rule 6 were retrospectively amended by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 and as per the provisions of retrospective amendment in case where the manufacturer is availing credit in respect of the common inputs common input services and the same are being used in exempted as well as excisable goods, the manufacturer has to reverse the credit attributed to the exempted goods and for the past period an option was given to file a declaration reversing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2012AIR(Jhar)83
Prakash Tatia, C.J. 1. This bunch of writ petitions have been preferred to challenge the validity of section 3 of the Jharkhand Entry Tax Act on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2011 being ultra vires to Article 301 read with Article304(a) of the Constitution of India and is not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India with consequential relief of order of restraint against the respondent State of Jharkhand from enforcing the provisions of the Jharkhand Entry Tax Act, 2011, whereby and whereunder entry tax has been sought to be levied and collected on scheduled goods, making entry exceeding Rs. 10,000/-into local area from any place outside the State for consumption or use therein. 2. All the petitioners are engaged in trade or manufacture and registered under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as dealer. The petitioners, during the course of their business, import scheduled goods as specified under the Jharkhand Entry Tax Act of 2011 on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 504/2007, ITA 507/2007 ITA 508/2007,ITA 511/2007 ITA 397/2007 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:22.7.2011 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:23.12.2011 (1) ITA 504/2007 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Mohan Prasaran, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus ERICSSON A.B.,NEW DELHI. ....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Soli Dastur, Mr. Percy Perdiwalla, Ms. Pratibha Singh, Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee and Ms. Meghna Sudha Panda, Advocates (2) ITA 507/2007 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Mohan Prasaran, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEM A.B.,NEW DELHI. .RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Soli Dastur, Mr. Percy Perdiwalla, Ms. Pratibha Singh, ITA 504/2007, ITA 507/2007, ITA 508/2007,ITA 511/2007, ITA 397/2007 Page 1 of 75 Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee and Ms. Meghna Sudha Panda, Advocates (3) ITA 508/2007 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Mohan Prasaran, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Sab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
(Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961) SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J 1. The instant appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961") is against the order dated 7-10-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and partly allowed the cross objection filed by the assessee. 2. This Court vide order dated 18-8-2011 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessment framed u/s 143 (3)/147 by the assessing officer." 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee was engaged in the business of poultry farming in the name and style of Royal Poultry Farm. The assessee filed the income return for the AY 1997 - 98 on 22-12-1997 declaring its income of Rs.1,49,854/-. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 AND 8985/2011 BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN Judgment dt:11/10/20111/24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. .. 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8985/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Judgment : 11th October, 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. --------1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. These two writ petitions have been filed by the the impugnedpetitioner Binani Cement Limited challengingrectification order and consequential demand notices issued against it for assessment year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in which demand of approximately Rs.64.30 lacs has been raised against the said company manufacturing cement, as a consequence of amendment brought in Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956 including section 8(5) of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1) This appeal was admitted on 21/12/2010 on one question of law, which at the hearing of the appeal, by consent, is reframed into two questions, as follows :-a) Whether the transactions in exchange traded financial derivatives are "speculative transactions" as defined in Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ?b) If so whether clause (d) inserted to the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-2006 would apply to such transactions undertaken in the assessment year 2003-04 ?2) The respondent-assessee is an HUF engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities, etc. 3) In the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had entered into certain transactions in exchange traded derivatives ('derivative transactions' for short) which resulted in loss amounting to Rs. 28,37,707/-. The assessee claimed the above loss as business loss. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short) the assessing officer rejected the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes. in the Digest ?1. These four writ petitions have been filed by Interocean Group of Companies/concerns and as common issues/contentions have been raised, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9394/2009 filed by Interocean Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd., is being treated as the lead case.2. The aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 9394/2009 was filed on 27th May, 2009. Vide order dated 14th July, 2009, notice to show cause was issued in the writ petition and on the interim application, it was directed that the proceedings on the basis of impugned show cause notice could continue but the final order shall not be given effect to without leave of the Court. The said interim order has continued till date. The aforesaid writ petition was amended after the assessment order dated 26th Oc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. The writ petition is for declaration to declare the Circular dated 7.10.2005 issued by the second respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs as ultra vires section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 read with sections 37B and 65(19) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India insofar it relates to the petitioner.2. The petitioner which is engaged in the business of publishing newspapers and periodicals had entered into a contract on 31.10.2000 with CCI Europe A/S Denmark for the supply of software for pagination system. That apart, an agreement for maintenance of software was also entered, by which the petitioner paid DKK 2,209,690 equivalent to Indian Rupees 1.66 crores (approximately). (a) The second respondent issued a circular on 17.12.2003 to the effect that the software service would be outside the purview of service tax and it is also stipulated in section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 that it does not...
Tag this Judgment!