Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)Section 67 in The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
The Finance Act, 2018
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
10. Then comes the question of quantum. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the dictum in
Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1970)25 STC
211], that even if violation is proved, it has still to be
W.P.(C) No.35333 OF 2009
9
considered, whether penalty to the whole extent, as stipulated
in the Statute, has to be imposed or whether a nominal penalty
would be enough to meet the situation as in the instant case. It
remains a fact that the petitioner produced declarations only
from 'six' dealers, out of ten, as observed by the first respondent
in Ext. P5 order and reiterated in paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit filed by the said respondent. Whether such declarations
were got verified ; whether the plea raised by the petitioner with
reference to such declaration that no loss to the Revenue was
resulted in respect of such transaction etc., are not revealed from
Ext. P5 or the counter affidavit filed by the concerned
respondent. There is also a contention for the petitioner that the
existence of any wrongful intention/ill-motive is not considered
by the first respondent while passing Ext. P5, fixing the
quantum.
The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
Priya Agencies vs Commercial Tax Officer (A.A.), ... on 2 April, 2008
3. On receipt of Ext. P2 notice, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P3 reply, referring to the amendment brought about,
incorporating the latter part of the 5th proviso to Section11(3) of
the KVAT Act and contending that since the suppliers of the
W.P.(C) No.35333 OF 2009
3
petitioner have not availed any benefit or refund in respect of
the discount given to the petitioner, altering the input tax credit
already availed of, the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit
thereunder. Reference was also made to the Circular No.41/2007
dated 18.09.2007, scope of which was widened to the suppliers
of other commodities as well, than the Cement Company shown
therein, vide decision reported in (2008) 16 KTR 287, (Priya
Agencies vs. Commercial Tax Officer )enabling the dealers to
produce declarations from the suppliers to the effect that the
suppliers have not claimed deduction on the credit note amounts
and that full tax on the bills were paid. It was stated that in
conformity with the said decision, the petitioner was also
producing the relevant declarations from their suppliers along
with Ext.P3 reply, thus requesting to drop further proceedings.
Ext. P4 series are the declarations in this regard.
1