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>Court quashes penalty order under Punjab VAT Act, rules in favor of petitioner</h1> <h3>M/s Thyssen Krupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab and another</h3> M/s Thyssen Krupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab and another - TMI Issues:1. Quashing of penalty order under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005.2. Determination of nature of transaction - inter-State sale or works contract.3. Maintainability of writ petition due to appealable order.4. Jurisdiction of Information Collection Centre to impose penalty.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the penalty order dated 25.7.2010 imposed by respondent no.2 under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005. The petitioner's goods, elevator components, were detained at the Information Collection Centre while being transported to Punjab. The petitioner argued that the transaction was an inter-State sale, supported by invoices, but the officer-in-charge deemed it an intra-State sale for works to be executed in Punjab.2. The petitioner contended that the transaction was an inter-State sale, citing a similar case decided by the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that the legal issue required adjudication, and the penalty imposition was not justified as relevant documents were produced, and a genuine plea against taxability was raised. The respondent, however, claimed the transaction was a works contract, not an inter-State sale.3. The respondent objected to the writ petition's maintainability, stating that the order was appealable. The court rejected the plea of alternative remedy, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction in the present case based on admitted facts regarding the nature of the transaction.4. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the penalty order, emphasizing that the petitioner had provided all necessary information and raised a dispute in good faith. The court clarified that the Assessing Authority could still determine the taxability during assessment, highlighting that the penalty imposition at the Information Collection Centre was unwarranted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
