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>Petition Dismissed: Assessing Officer's Decisions Upheld</h1> <h3>Channi Carpet Exports Versus Commercial Taxes Officers, Anti Evasion III, Jaipur</h3> Channi Carpet Exports Versus Commercial Taxes Officers, Anti Evasion III, Jaipur - [2016] 92 VST 176 (Raj) Issues Involved:1. Tax exemption on carpets.2. Excess stock found during the survey.3. Validity of approval memos for excess stock.4. Imposition of penalty under section 77(8) of the RST Act.5. Application for composition under section 72(3) of the RST Act.6. Rectification application under section 37 of the RST Act.7. Application of the Supreme Court judgment in Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Tax Exemption on Carpets:The primary issue was whether the carpets manufactured by the petitioner were exempt from tax as per the Supreme Court judgment in Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India. The court found that the judgment cited by the petitioner was distinguishable and did not directly address the taxability of carpets under the RST Act. The court noted that merely stating that carpets fall under the definition of 'textile' and are exempt was insufficient without concrete evidence or legal backing.2. Excess Stock Found During the Survey:During the survey conducted on August 16, 1997, an excess stock of 5517.375 square feet of silk carpet was found. The petitioner claimed that 2974 square feet of this stock was received through approval memos, which required verification. Despite doubts about the approval memos, the assessing officer credited this amount, leaving 2543.375 square feet as unaccounted stock.3. Validity of Approval Memos for Excess Stock:The assessing officer expressed skepticism about the approval memos provided by the petitioner. However, for the sake of argument, even if the memos were accepted, there was still an excess of 2543.375 square feet of silk carpet. The court upheld the assessing officer's decision to treat this as undisclosed stock due to the lack of supporting purchase bills or material evidence.4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 77(8) of the RST Act:The assessing officer issued a notice under section 77(6) of the RST Act, proposing a penalty for the undisclosed stock. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and produce evidence but instead opted for compounding the offense. The court found that the procedure followed by the assessing officer was appropriate and provided adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.5. Application for Composition under Section 72(3) of the RST Act:The petitioner voluntarily applied for composition under section 72(3) of the RST Act, admitting the offense and agreeing to pay the composition fee of Rs. 4,26,015. This amount was promptly deposited, and the proceedings were concluded. The court noted that this order became final and was not challenged by the petitioner, thus making it binding.6. Rectification Application under Section 37 of the RST Act:Almost a year later, the petitioner filed an application under section 37, seeking rectification of the order dated August 16, 1997. The petitioner argued that the initial order was improper and that principles of natural justice were not followed. The court held that section 37 allows for rectification of apparent mistakes but does not permit a review or reconsideration of the entire case. The court found no apparent mistake in the original order and concluded that the rectification application was an attempt to review the decision, which is impermissible under the Act.7. Application of the Supreme Court Judgment in Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises v. Union of India:The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ess Dee Carpet Enterprises to argue that carpets should be exempt from tax. However, the court found that this judgment pertained to the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and did not directly address the tax exemption status of carpets under the RST Act. The court concluded that the judgment was not applicable to the present case.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, upholding the assessing officer's decisions regarding the excess stock, the imposition of penalty, the voluntary composition application, and the rejection of the rectification application. The court found no justification for the petitioner's claims and ruled in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found