TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a dealer under the composition scheme had a statutory right to opt out when the rate of tax on the commodity dealt in was revised, irrespective of any showing of prejudice.
Analysis: Section 9 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 enabled payment of lump sum in lieu of tax, and rule 46(3) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 permitted withdrawal from the option when either the lump sum rate was revised or the tax rate on the commodity was revised. The language of the rule was plain and unqualified. No additional condition that the dealer must prove prejudice from the revision of tax rate could be read into the provision. On the facts, the revision in the tax rate on plywood and plyboard attracted the rule and entitled the dealer to change the option.
Conclusion: The dealer was entitled to opt out of the lump sum scheme on revision of the tax rate on the commodity, and the rejection of the application was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the dealer was held entitled to shift out of the lump sum composition from the next quarter.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the composition rules expressly permit withdrawal of the option upon revision of the tax rate on the commodity, the authority cannot impose an additional requirement of prejudice or disadvantage to deny that statutory right.
TaxTMI 
