TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs contractor to appeal double taxation order on interstate transaction, involves Delhi Administration</h1> The High Court directed the petitioner, a registered contractor, to appeal the Haryana Assessing Authority's order regarding double taxation on a ... - Issues involved:Challenge to assessment orders by Sales Tax Authority in Delhi and Excise and Taxation Officer in Gurgaon, double taxation on the same transaction, jurisdiction of appellate authorities, determination of inter-State or intra-State sale, appeal process, conflict resolution between different State authorities.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered contractor under the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contracts Act, 1999, faced double taxation due to the same transaction being taxed by authorities in both Delhi and Haryana. The Assessing Authority in Haryana treated the transfer of hot mix to Delhi as an inter-State sale, while Delhi authorities considered it an intra-State sale. The petitioner challenged these assessments, leading to a writ petition. The petitioner sought prohibition against being taxed twice on the same transaction, emphasizing the need to resolve the conflict arising from different tax treatments by the two States.The petitioner argued that the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority was non-functional, hindering resolution of the inter-State or intra-State nature of the transaction. The petitioner urged the High Court to determine the transaction's nature and tax liability, highlighting the necessity of resolving such conflicts between States claiming taxation rights on the same transaction. Citing precedent, the petitioner emphasized the importance of clarifying such issues through proper adjudication.The respondents contended that the challenge to the Delhi Assessing Authority's order was misplaced, as the petitioner had not questioned Delhi's jurisdiction to tax the transaction based on composition under section 6 of the Act. They suggested that the petitioner should appeal the Haryana Assessing Authority's order and exhaust available remedies. Another respondent argued that the appeal process should follow the hierarchy of authorities, with an appeal under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act being a prerequisite before approaching the Tribunal in Haryana.The High Court acknowledged the conflict between the two States' tax treatment of the transaction and the need for resolution. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court directed the petitioner to appeal the Haryana Assessing Authority's order, involving Delhi Administration as a party. This approach aimed to ensure a comprehensive adjudication of the transaction's nature, whether inter-State or intra-State, and allowed for further redress if needed. The Court set a timeline for the appeal's disposal and maintained the interim order until resolution, emphasizing the importance of a fair and efficient conflict resolution process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
