Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.05 seconds)

M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 November, 2013

Index:Yes						  (C.V.,J)        (T.S.S.,J)

Internet:Yes						  14.11.2013	

nvsri/rpa					
							


To
1.The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (East) Division
  Chennai	

2.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT)IV, Chennai

3.The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 
  (Main Bench), Chennai.




CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.
							  	      and								       	    T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.


nvsri













Tax Case (Revision) Nos.396 to 406 of 2011










14.11.2013

Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. vs Commissioner, Dvat, Delhi & Ors. on 5 February, 2015

19. At this stage, we would like to refer to the decision of Delhi High Court in Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Service Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax & Ors. (2010) 29 VST 349 (Del). The said case related to Act of 2002 and the issue was whether lease rentals received after 15th September, 2004 would be taxable though the agreements for transfer of right to use were prior to the said date. The Act of 2002 was enforced/notified with effect from 15th September, 2004 only. The challenge raised in the said writ petition was on the ground that the definition of term „turnover of sales‟ in Section 2(s) was ultra vires the charging section, i.e. Section 3 which postulated and codified the instance of tax. The High Court applied the principle of harmonious construction and reconciled the two sections. It was further observed that principle of ultra vires would not be applicable when challenge made is that one provision of the Act is ultra vires of another. Thus, constitutional validity of Section 3, or for that matter Section 2(n) of Act, 2002, was not challenged and even the doctrine of reading down was not relied. The High Court observed that in terms of the two provisions, lease instalments paid after 15th September, 2004 would be subject to tax even when the agreements were prior in point of time. The term „sale‟ as defined in Section 2(n) of Act 2000, it was distinguished, would include deferred payment, i.e. when payment is staggered and not at one time. In such cases, right to use accrues in favour of the lessee when he pays rental regularly and in terms of the agreement. In this context, reference was also made to clause 29A inserted to Article 366 which treats certain transactions as sale by deeming effect. Thus, the said decisions support and affirm our reasoning.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document

The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Lease Plan India Limited on 6 August, 2014

In the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in [(2010) 29 VST 346] in the case of M/s INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX AND OTHERS on 11 which reliance was placed by the revenue, there was a specific provision for levying of tax in respect of contracts entered into prior to coming into force of the Act. Therefore, the legislature expressly took away the right vested in the assessee prior to coming into force of the said Act. Such a provision is conspicuously missing in the KVAT Act. Though the legislature has the power to take away a vested right by express words, when the legislature has made it clear that the Act is prospective, the Court by interpretative process cannot take away the right which is vested in an assessee. That is what the Tribunal has precisely held after referring to the various judgments on which reliance was placed. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper and is in accordance with law. Therefore, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence, we do not see any merit in these revisions and accordingly they are dismissed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1