TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Upholds Tribunal Decision on Trade Tax Penalties</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Ashoka Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Ashoka Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. - [2009] 20 VST 332 (All) Issues:1. Penalty under section 8D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96.2. Interpretation of whether the contract was a works contract or a contract for sale.3. Applicability of section 8D(1) of the Act regarding tax deduction.Analysis:1. The revisions were filed against the Tribunal's order deleting penalties under section 8D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The dealer was penalized for not deducting tax while making payments to a contractor for constructing a body over a chassis. The Tribunal held that the dealer had purchased the body and not entered into a works contract. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and the interpretation of the nature of the contract.2. The dispute revolved around whether the contract was a works contract or a contract for sale. The Standing Counsel argued that the contract was a composite indivisible contract for material and labor, making it a works contract. However, the dealer contended that the transaction was a sale of the body, not a works contract. The dealer cited legal precedents supporting their position, emphasizing that the Tribunal's finding was a factual determination not warranting interference.3. The applicability of section 8D(1) of the Act regarding tax deduction was crucial. The dealer argued that due to the contentious nature of whether the contract was a works contract or a sale contract, there was no deliberate defiance in not deducting tax. The dealer highlighted the retrospective effect of re-enacted tax provisions and the lack of clarity in determining the contract's nature. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the absence of deliberate defiance and citing precedents supporting leniency in penalty imposition for non-wilful actions.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing all six revisions concerning penalties under section 8D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The judgment underscored the factual nature of the Tribunal's findings, the debatable nature of the contract's classification, and the absence of deliberate defiance warranting penalty imposition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
