Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)
Tvl.Sakthi Sugars Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 December, 2019 cites

Tvl.Sakthi Sugars Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 June, 2019

15. We have considered the order of the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner and the contention of the dealer-appellants. As far as the case on hand is concerned, it is an admitted fact that every turnover is found in the accounts. It is submitted by them that they have not paid the tax due with the bonafide belief that the above charges are not includible to the purchase price of the sugarcane. We find that dealer-appellants were in bonafide belief from the fact that the dealer- appellants disputed the levy of tax on the above http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc. Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 25/28 payments continuously. Further there is no suppression of any turnover out of accounts and there is only claim of exemption which was later denied and disallowed by the Assessing Authority. In of the above, we are of the considered view that no penalty can be levied for the difference of tax due arisen for non-payment of tax on which exemption claimed. However, the Assessing Authority is at liberty to levy interest u/s. 24(3) of the Act from the due date. With the above observation, we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority to the tune of Rs.63,34,292/- in respect of the assessment year 1993-94.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Chengalvarayan Co-Operative Sugar ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 July, 1996

Sakthi Sugars Ltd v. State of TN 24/28 the case of E.I.D. Parry (I) Limited case, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 105 STC 497 (Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited case). The dealer-appellants have contended that they had acted bonafide and their conduct was not contumacious of guilt that they still in bonafide belief that the facts are distinguishable from the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Madras High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 8 October, 2001

Aggrieved of the orders of the Assessing Authority, the dealer/Appellants had preferred first appeal before the first appellate authority, who after hearing the case and perusal of records confirmed the levies after detailed discussion and by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of E.I.D. Parry(I) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 117 STC 457. Aggrieved of the orders of the first appellate authority, the dealer-appellants preferred these nine appeals disputing the turnovers detailed in the above said para, At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the dealer-appellants stated that he is not pressing the issue related to planting subsidy.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 39 - R J Babu - Full Document

Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 1990

On appeal, the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner had sustained the above penalty with the findings that transport charges paid to third party lorry owners and subsidies of transport and planting are part of the purchase price of sugarcane and liable to tax is declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its judgement dated January 4, 1984 in the case of Kallakurichi Sugar Mills case reporter in 60 STC 113 and subsequently on July 15, 1991 in the case of Perambalur Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 86 STC 17. Further, the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner has recorded that the dealer-appellants deliberately remained silent without paying any tax even though they would well aware of the decision reported in 117 STC 457 in http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.12.19 in T.C.55/2019, etc.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 Next