Suvasini Charitable Trust V. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [W.P.(C) 4086/2013]

  • In this batch of writ petitions constitutional validity of Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi VAT Act, 2003 (DVAT Act) was challenged on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the given provisions the dealer suffered due to non‑compliance on part of the seller which was beyond the dealer’s control.
  • Relying on Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [1955] 1 SCR 1045 the Hon’ble Delhi HC held that there was a need to restrict the denial of ITC only to the selling dealers who had failed to deposit the tax collected by them and not punish bona fide purchasing dealers.
  • Necessary exclusions were read in the challenged provision and challenged assessment orders were quashed.

Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 2235 of 2011, High Court of Delhi.

  • In the absence of machinery provision under the Act / Rules which provides for exclusion of all components other than service components, in case of composite works contract, there cannot be any levy of Service Tax.
  • The machinery provision for levy of tax cannot be provided by way of notification / circulars. The Court, thus, ordered refund of service tax collected from the buyers of flat for the period prior to 1st July, 2012, from which date the Rules were amended to provide for computation of service component in a composite works contract.

CHD Developers v. State of Haryana, CWP 5730 of 2014, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

  • In case of works contract relating to builders / developers, tax can be levied only on the value of materials transferred in the execution of works contract on and after the date of agreement with the intended purchaser.
  • The said value of materials is to be taken from the books of accounts of the builder / developer.
  • Haryana VAT Rules not providing for complete exclusions were quashed.

Gwalior Alcobrew Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in WP-No. 2366-2016 dt. 26.08.2016 [High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur]

  • The MP VAT Department initiated assessment/reassessment proceedings against the Petitioner on the ground that foreign liquor is not an excisable product, and is, hence, not exempt from tax under the MP Commercial Tax act and MP VAT Act (which exempts excisable goods from levy of sales tax). The said proceedings were challenged by writ petitions. It was submitted that the words “duty is or may be levied” would mean that, goods continue to be excisable even if no duty is actually levied. Held that actual levy is not necessary for grant of exemption from sales tax. Power to levy excise arises at the moment manufacturing activity oi conducted. Said proceedings were set aside.

Jasch Plastics India Ltd. V. State of Haryana in VAT AP No. 48 of 2013 – High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

  • Questions before the bench were – (a) whether ‘leather cloth/ rexine’ is a textile; (b) whether the punctuation mark “:” (colon) divides the Entry 54 of HVAT Act, and condition mentioned after the mark is applicable only to the second part of the entry and not to the first part.
  • Both the issues were answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the assesse.

Jagriti Plastics v CTT (2015) 223 DLT 571 (Del)

  • Credit can be availed on VAT paid on purchase of DEPB scrips used for payment of import duty of imported goods in which the dealer deals in.

Commissioner of VAT vs Jupitor Exports CCE ST.APPL.10/2014 ORDER DATED 23.2.15 (2015) SCC Online 7520

  • Delhi High Court explained complete law on compounding of offences under Delhi VAT

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, [(2014) 309 ELT 81 (Tri. – Del)] – CESTAT, Delhi

  • CESTAT has the power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days, as provided under section 35C(2A) of Central Excise Act, if it is satisfied that the disposal of appeal is not delayed for fault of the assessee.

Allen Diesels India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, [(2016) 334 ELT 624] – High Court of Delhi

  • Refund of SAD paid utilizing DEPB scrips cannot be denied on the ground that the same is not paid in cash. Conditions for claiming refund cannot be provided by way of circular in addition to the conditions specified in the exemption notification.

Kirby Building System v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Appeal No. 129/2011 & 130/2011, AY 2007-08, Uttarakhand VAT Tribunal

  • Consumables purchased for the manufacture / processing of Pre-engineered Steel Building considered as raw materials and ITC is available against the said purchase

M/s Mercury Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes, New Delhi, Appeal Nos. 198-199/ATVAT/10-11, Delhi VAT Tribunal.

  • Recovery of insurance claim is an actionable claim even in cases where the partial payment with respect to such recovery is made by the buyer of the salvage directly, which cannot be subjected to the levy of VAT

Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Appeal No. 119/11 & 120/11, AY – 2006-07, UP VAT Tribunal.

  • License to use trademark is different from the transfer of right to use the trademark, as there is a difference of exclusivity between the two. For there being absence of transfer of right to use, there cannot be any levy of sales tax. The same has been upheld by the Allahabad High Court and the SLP against the high court judgment stands rejected.