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>High Court directs Tax Board to expedite appeal decision, grants relief in RVAT tax dispute</h1> <h3>M/s. Parle Products P. Ltd. Versus. State of Rajasthan & Others</h3> M/s. Parle Products P. Ltd. Versus. State of Rajasthan & Others - [2013] 60 VST 246 (Raj) Issues:1. Dispute over the classification of goods for tax purposes under the RVAT Act.2. Petitioner's application for stay of order dismissed by Rajasthan Tax Board.3. Failure of Tax Board to provide reasons for dismissing the application.4. Jurisdiction of courts and Tribunals in granting interim protection.5. Direction for expeditious decision on the appeal.Analysis:1. The dispute in the case revolves around the classification of goods manufactured by the petitioner company under different entries of the RVAT Act. The petitioner treated its goods under Entry 163 of Schedule IV, while the department classified them under the residual Entry of Schedule V, resulting in a tax discrepancy.2. The petitioner filed an application for stay of the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner Appeals, Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer, which was dismissed by the Rajasthan Tax Board. The petitioner contended that the dispute was about the rate of tax based on the classification of goods, not tax evasion.3. The High Court noted that the order of the Tax Board was non-speaking, lacking any reasons for denying the stay. The court emphasized that the dispute did not involve tax evasion but centered on the classification of goods. The petitioner, a reputable company, had already paid the disputed tax amount under protest.4. The court highlighted the need for a balanced exercise of jurisdiction by courts and Tribunals in granting interim protection, considering the facts of each case. It directed the Tax Board to decide the appeal within twenty days and instructed the petitioner to request an expedited hearing, with a decision to be made within fifteen days thereafter.5. Pending the appeal before the Tax Board, the court ordered a stay on the deposit of interest on the differential tax amount demanded by the department and already paid by the petitioner company. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, providing relief to the petitioner during the appeal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
