1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Unjust VAT assessment overturned, petitioner granted refund, authorities ordered to provide evidence for cross-examination.</h1> The court found the assessment of VAT on the annual maintenance contract turnover to be unjust as the authorities increased it to 75% based on customer ... - Issues involved: Assessment of value added tax on annual maintenance contract turnover, violation of principles of natural justice.Assessment of VAT on AMC turnover: The assessee, engaged in computer hardware and software sales, provided annual maintenance contract (AMC) services and paid service tax on 90% of AMC turnover. Authorities levied VAT on 10% of turnover, later increased to 75% based on customer statements. The petitioner argued that VAT should not apply to service contracts, and the order lacked basis and violated natural justice principles.Principles of natural justice: The petitioner contended that the authorities' decision to increase VAT to 75% without providing opportunity for cross-examination or explanation based on customer statements was unjust. The government advocate defended the decision, stating each year's assessment is independent and the 75% VAT was justified based on investigations.Judgment: The court noted the petitioner's consistent payment of VAT on 10% of turnover and service tax on 90%, as per pre-2005 Supreme Court judgment. Authorities' reliance on customer statements to increase VAT to 75% was deemed unjust without petitioner's input or cross-examination. The court directed authorities to provide all collected statements and materials to the petitioner, allowing for response and cross-examination, and set aside the tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner was granted a refund and instructed to appear for assessment proceedings within three months.