Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Upholds Sales Tax, Sets Aside Penalty for Petitioner Acting on Exemption Certificate</h1> <h3>Butani Cotton Industries Versus State of Gujarat and Others</h3> Butani Cotton Industries Versus State of Gujarat and Others - [2013] 57 VST 59 (Guj) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the exemption certificate issued under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.2. Applicability of condition 9 of entry 175 to the sales of cotton.3. Levy of penalty for alleged breach of condition 9 of entry 175.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Exemption Certificate:The petitioner, a firm engaged in the business of cotton and cotton seeds, was registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and was issued an eligibility certificate for sales tax exemption under the 'Special Incentive for Pioneer Unit-86' scheme. The eligibility certificate granted benefits for both cotton and cotton seeds. However, the petitioner applied for and was granted an exemption certificate only for cotton seeds to the extent of Rs. 2,41,000. The petitioner availed of this exemption from 1990-91 to 1993-94. The assessment for 1993-94 was completed and accepted without claiming exemption for cotton sales.2. Applicability of Condition 9 of Entry 175:The revisional authority initiated proceedings under section 67 of the Act, revising the assessment order and disallowing the exemption claimed for cotton seeds, stating that the petitioner should have claimed exemption for cotton as well. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the sales tax authorities should not have granted an exemption certificate that did not align with the eligibility certificate, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme. The petitioner argued that it had the option to avail benefits under the scheme for cotton seeds and under regular provisions for cotton, and that condition 9 of entry 175 did not apply as the exemption certificate was only for cotton seeds.3. Levy of Penalty:The revisional authority and the Tribunal imposed a penalty on the petitioner for the alleged breach of condition 9 of entry 175. The petitioner contended that the exemption certificate was valid and covered only cotton seeds, and therefore, it was entitled to sell cotton against form 17B under section 13 of the Act. The petitioner argued that there was no monetary loss to the Revenue as the subsequent purchaser paid more tax on the sale in Gujarat due to value addition.Court's Findings:- The court found that the scheme's benefit is granted to a new industrial unit, and the exemption applies to goods manufactured by the specified manufacturer, which in this case included both cotton and cotton seeds.- The exemption limit of Rs. 2,41,000 was based on the total capital investment in the new industry, and the conditions under entry 175 applied to all goods manufactured by the specified manufacturer.- The court held that the petitioner's argument that condition 9 did not apply to cotton sales was contrary to the scheme's provisions. The conditions applied to all goods manufactured in the new industry, irrespective of whether the exemption was claimed for one or all products.- The court observed that the petitioner had committed a breach of condition 9 by selling cotton against form 17B, as the sales of the specified manufacturer were wholly exempted under the scheme.- However, the court found that the petitioner acted on a bona fide belief based on the exemption certificate granted only for cotton seeds and did not have any mala fide intention or mens rea. Consequently, the penalty imposed was not justified.Conclusion:The petition was partly allowed. The court upheld the demand for sales tax and interest but set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The court ruled that the petitioner could not be penalized for acting in accordance with the exemption certificate granted by the respondent-authorities.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found