Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)Futura Ceramics Pvt.Limited vs State Of Gujarat Thro on 23 August, 2013
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties at
considerable length at the outset, we may
straightaway agree with the suggestion of the counsel
for the Revenue that the present group of cases do not
fall in the same category as the judgement of this
Court in case of Futura Ceramics (petitioner) Ltd v.
State of Gujarat reported in [2013] 40 taxmann.com
404 (Gujarat). It was the case in which, the petitioner
before the High Court was a registered dealer under
the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and was liable to pay
tax on the basis of its turnover. The petitioner's return
for the financial year 2006-07 was scrutinized by the
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax. The
assessee was served with the show-cause notice by
the said authority indicating that he has reason to
believe that taxable turnover was suppressed. This
was on the basis of a show-cause notice issued by the
Excise department pursuant to the raid indicating that
the petitioner had suppressed sales to the tune of Rs.
5.25 crores and thereby evaded tax duty to the extent
of 73.55 lacs. The Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Tax therefore, prima facie held a belief
that the assessee's sale of Rs. 5.97 crores (i.e. the
suppressed sale of 5.25 crores coupled with excise
duty element of 73.55 lacs) had escaped assessment.
He accordingly, framed the assessment after rejecting
the petitioner's objections. Such assessment order was
challenged by the petitioner before the High Court on
the ground that the Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Tax had proceeded merely on the show-
cause notice issued by the Excise Department without
any further verification. The Court noticed that the
entire order of reassessment proceeded on the show-
cause notice issued by the Excise department without
any further material being brought on record. The
Court held that merely because the Excise department
issued such a notice, it cannot be a ground to presume
that there was evasion of excise duty further implying
evasion of value added tax. It was noticed that the
show-cause notice issued by the Excise department
had not yet culminated into final order against the
petitioner and a piquant situation would arise if
ultimately, such show-cause notice were to be dropped
Page 6 of 9
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 01:32:55 IST 2019
C/TAXAP/204/2019 JUDGMENT
in favour of the petitioner. On this ground, the Court
quashed the order of reassessment.
The Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Vrundavan Ceramics P. Ltd on 10 September, 2018
was ITA No. 117/Rjt/2013. The Revenue challenged the very
same order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of
Vrundavan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. We take notice of the fact that
the coordinate bench by a common judgment disposed of a
batch of tax appeals preferred by the Revenue. We quote the
observations made by the coordinate bench in the case of
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-3 Vs.
Vrundavan Ceramics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 95 taxmann.com
13 (Gujarat).
1