Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Karnataka Court Upholds Tax Forfeiture: Clarifies Refund Rules for Excess Payments</h1> <h3>Suresh Agencies Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and Another</h3> Suresh Agencies Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and Another - [2012] 50 VST 154 (Kar) Issues Involved:1. Forfeiture of sales tax paid by the assessee.2. Entitlement of the assessee for a refund of wrongly collected sales tax.3. Examination of whether the assessee collected tax from customers.4. Validity of the Commissioner's order based on extraneous materials.5. Legal procedure and rights concerning appeals and revisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Forfeiture of Sales Tax Paid by the Assessee:The primary issue was whether the sales tax paid by the assessee should be forfeited by the government. The revisional authority under section 22A(ii) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, had ordered the forfeiture of the sales tax amounting to Rs. 8,60,801 paid by the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98. The Commissioner concluded that the assessee had wrongly collected this amount from customers and remitted it to the government, making it liable for forfeiture.2. Entitlement of the Assessee for a Refund of Wrongly Collected Sales Tax:The assessee argued for a refund of the sales tax paid, claiming it was wrongly collected. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepted this argument, stating that since the tax was not collected on the sales bills, it should be refunded. However, the Commissioner, upon revising the order, determined that the tax was indeed collected from customers, thus negating the refund claim.3. Examination of Whether the Assessee Collected Tax from Customers:The crux of the dispute was whether the assessee had passed on the tax liability to customers. The Commissioner examined the sales bills and account books, noting that the tax component was not explicitly mentioned. However, the Commissioner relied on the fact that the sachets of pan parag gutkha sold by the assessee stated that the price was inclusive of all taxes, indicating that the tax was collected from customers. The Commissioner also compared the assessee's records with those of other dealers in the same business, further supporting the conclusion that the tax was collected.4. Validity of the Commissioner's Order Based on Extraneous Materials:The assessee contended that the Commissioner had relied on extraneous materials in concluding that the tax was collected from customers. The court found that the Commissioner had indeed considered various documents and records, including statements of purchase and sales, profit and loss accounts, and comparative data from other dealers. The court held that the Commissioner's findings were based on legal evidence and not mere assumptions or guesswork, thus validating the Commissioner's order.5. Legal Procedure and Rights Concerning Appeals and Revisions:The assessee argued that the Commissioner should have remanded the matter back to the assessing authority, allowing for a proper appeal process. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the Commissioner had the statutory power to revise the order if it was prejudicial to the revenue. The court emphasized that the right of appeal is statutory and must be exercised within the framework of the law. The court concluded that the Commissioner's order was legally sound and did not deprive the assessee of any legal remedies.Conclusion:The High Court of Karnataka upheld the Commissioner's order, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The court found that the assessee had indeed collected the tax from customers and remitted it to the government, justifying the forfeiture of the amount. The court also clarified that any excess tax paid beyond the actual liability should be refunded to the assessee, while the rest would be forfeited. This judgment reinforces the legal principles surrounding tax collection, forfeiture, and refund under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, ensuring compliance with statutory obligations and protecting revenue interests.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found