Description: The supreme court in M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Union of India Ltd. (Write to petition No.183 of 2003) (judgment dated 2-3-2006) clearly held that in order to bring to tax any transaction they must be goods. The definition of ‘goods’ laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Services vs. State […]
Read MoreTribunal Appeal No.528/2007 Description: A judgment was refered in which Supreme Court held that in order to bring to tax any transaction they must be goods. Source: Trade and Taxes volume no 18. Part no.1 April 2011. Page no.171. Our Comment: To levy VAT the transaction should be for transfer of goods
Read MoreTribunal Appeal No.654/10. Description: Tribunal Appeal No.654/10 Wednesday, the 9th Day of March, 2011. Appellants: M/s Cavin Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad. Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh The appellant deals in fruit drinks and the C.T.O. treating that the appellant is dealing in sales of aerated fruit drinks and levied @ 12.5% as […]
Read MoreTribunal Appeal No. 901/2007. (Extract in Part) Description: Tribunal Appeal No.901/2007. Tuesday, The 15th Day of March, 2011 Appellants: M/s Specific Laboratories (p) Ltd., Secunderabad. Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh In a Judgment it was held that without reference to H.S.N. Codes, the authorities have to see as to whether […]
Read MoreDescription: A.R.Com/61/2008. Dated : 5-3-2011. Ref: 1) CCt’s Ref.No: PMT/P & L/A.R.Com/2005, Dated 13-4-05. While acting as a buying agent on behalf of Resident Principal, is not liable to pay any tax whether the resident principal is a TOT dealer or a VAT dealer. Therefore, the question of the […]
Read MoreDescription: A.R.Com/52/2010. Dated: 5-3-2011. Ref: 1) CCT’s Ref.No: PMT/P & L/A.R.Com/2005, Dated 13-4-05. Therefore, the ruling is that the White Sugar/ Refined Sugar, manufactured from imported Raw Sugar is exempt from VAT on par with the White Sugar/ Refined Sugar manufactured from the Sugar Cane or the indigenous Raw Sugar. Source: Trade and Taxes […]
Read MoreDescription: A.R.Com/2/2010. Dated : 16-03-2011. Ref : 1) CCt’s Ref.No: PMT/P & L/A.R.Com/2005, Dated 13-04-05. The Ruling of the authority, therefore it is only the contractor, who actually executes the works contract either for the SEZ unit or for a developer of the SEZ in the processing Zone of the SEZ, is eligible for […]
Read MoreDescription: They also contended that they had sold only packaged (purified) drinking water and that this water would fall under Entry 12 of Fourth schedule eligible for exemption. This Tribunal Held that on bare perusal of the excluded items of water i.e., Mineral water sold by the appellants, as forms is not taxable. The purified […]
Read MoreTribunal Appeal No. 666/2010. Description: Tribunal Appeal no.666/2010. Tuesday, the 18th Day of January, 2011. Appellants: M/S. Radhakrishna Hospitality services Pvt.Limited, Ameerpet, Hyd. Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh Held that, the explanation in not filing before the period of 30 days is not due to negligence or inaction on the part of the […]
Read MoreDescription: The State Representative contends that here are two taxable events one at the time of when the appellant purchased from outside State and Second at the time of when the goods were incorporated which executing the work contract. Hence, the movement of the goods here in the present case took place with in the […]
Read More