|
36 |
Whether the dealer,Who is executing the works contract is entitled for the deduction of amounts pertaining to the depreciation of trippers,maintenance expenses of trippers and consumables,used in the execution of works contract under rule 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules or not? |
Yes |
December 2011 |
|
|
35 |
Whether issuance of show cause notice without giving personal hearing for cancellation of Registration for non-filling of Returns are justified under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act? |
No |
December 2011 |
|
|
34 |
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the tribunal was justified in upholding forfeiture of tax under The Bombay Sales Tax Act? |
No |
December 2011 |
|
|
33 |
i) What constitute the object and purpose of "registration" of a "dealer" under the sales tax laws?
ii) What is the scope of "enquiry" envisaged under sub-section (3)of section 19 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act,2004,and sub-rule (1) of rule 5 if the Central Sales Tax(Registration and Turnover) Rules 1975 in the matter of granting of "registration" to a "dealer"?
iii) Whether the "satisfaction",which sub-section(3) of section of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act,2044,and section 7 (3) of the Central Sales Tax(Registration and Turnover) Rules 195, contemplates, is a "Satisfaction" without any limits or fetters?
(iv) Whether refusal of "registration", in the present case,both under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act,1956, is based on irrelevant considerations having no nexus with the object behind incorporating the provisions for "registration" under the refusal to the petitioner as a "dealer",under the relevant fiscal statutes, suffers form malice in law, if law, if not malice in fact?
(v) Whether the petitioner is, inn the facts and attending circumstance entitled to compensation on account of the conduct of the respondents in not allowing "registration" to the relevant fiscal statutes, so to enable the petitioner as "dealer", under the relevant fiscal statutes, so as to enable the petitioner to carry on its on business ? |
Yes |
November 2011 |
|
|
32 |
a) Whether the concerned officer is empowered under section 51 the Punjab Value Added Tax Act,2005 to impose the penalty and to detain the goods the penalty imposed is beyond jurisdiction?
b) Whether the penalty imposed is legally sustainable in the presence of each and every documents proving the transaction genuine?
c) Whether the impugned order is legally Sustainable in eyes of law? |
No |
November 2011 |
|
|
31 |
Whether denial of input Tax credit under the Provisions of Haryana Value Added Tax Act,2003 by revenue was justified on the ground that the dealers from whom the petitioners have purchased goods,have not deposited full tax in State Treasury? |
No |
November 2011 |
|
|
30 |
Whether the Petitioners' contract is for transfer of the right to use transfer of the right to use transit mixers to M/s. Grasim In And whether the State Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed any error warranting interference under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,1957? |
Yes |
October 2011 |
|
|
29 |
i)Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of learned AETC passed on September 25,2006 when the said order was passed without complying with the earlier two orders passed by the Tribunal itself,whereby specific directions given to the authority to act in particular manner and conduct the enquiry accordingly?
ii)Whether the deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Sales Tax Act,1948 can disallowed in the case of selling dealer even if it has furnished the declaration From ST-XXII obtained from purchasing dealers and has complied with rule 26(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules,1949?
iii) whether in case where Government Printed ST-XXII forms are issued by the purchasing dealers to the selling dealer,the duty of Department to find to whom these declarations have been and how the said dealer have accounted for those forms and onus can be shifted upon the selling dealer on these issues?" |
Held:i)Yes,ii)No,iii)Yes |
October 2011 |
|
|
28 |
Was there any prejudice caused by remanding matter for fresh inquiry in a matter of disallowance of input credit due to the purchase invoices found to be not genuine under the provisions of U.P Value Added Tax Act? |
No |
October 2011 |
|
|
27 |
Whether issuance of notice proposing to make an assessment under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2003 of Residential school providing food in hostel to students was justified and whether the supply of foodstuff to the students is a business or not? Whether the petitioner is a dealer or not? And whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax under the Act or not |
|
September 2011 |
|
