Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 54(1)(11) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for issuing tax invoices in relation to transfer of the right to use a trade mark was sustainable.
Analysis: The transfer of the right to use the trade mark was treated as taxable goods under Section 4(1)(a) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 read with Schedule II, and tax was charged and deposited on the transaction. Section 22(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 enabled a registered selling dealer to issue tax invoices in respect of taxable sales, and the petitioner had effected such a sale of taxable goods. Since the transaction was within the statutory tax framework and no violation of any provision was shown, invocation of the penal power under Section 54(1)(11) was not justified. The separate issue of input tax credit was left open.
Conclusion: The notice was without jurisdiction and was quashed.