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

        Court remands Form 02AA-996226 to Tribunal for review, upholds decision on Form 01AA-147012.

        M/s. National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi

        M/s. National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:

        1. Disallowance of the claim of deduction under Section 4(2)(a)(v) in respect of form No. 02AA-996226.
        2. Distinguishing the ratio of the Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of CST Vs. Hari Ram Oil Co. regarding the purchasing dealer's registration certificate.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        Issue 1: Disallowance of the claim of deduction under Section 4(2)(a)(v) in respect of form No. 02AA-996226

        The Tribunal disallowed the deduction claim for form No. 02AA-996226, amounting to Rs. 30,23,582/-, on the grounds that the dealer did not exercise ordinary business prudence. The Tribunal noted that the form was initially issued to MMTC in 1991 but was later altered to the petitioner's name in 1994. The Tribunal held that the petitioner should have verified the form's authenticity from the Ward Officer, given the three-year gap. The Tribunal concluded that sales tax was payable due to the lack of due diligence by the petitioner.

        The High Court, however, found that the Tribunal overlooked critical facts. The form was properly initialed after the name change, and there was no prohibition on using the form after three years. MMTC confirmed that it did not utilize the form, indicating the dealer's mistake in the utilization account. The Court deemed it impractical for the dealer to verify the form's authenticity every time. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh look, emphasizing that there was no fault on the petitioner's part in accepting the form from the purchasing dealer.

        Issue 2: Distinguishing the ratio of the Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of CST Vs. Hari Ram Oil Co.

        The Tribunal disallowed the deduction claim for form No. 01AA-147012, amounting to Rs. 8,63,848/-, because the purchasing dealer's registration certificate was canceled effective 02.04.1990, while the form was issued in 1995. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's claim of having seen the registration certificate in 1994 was not credible, as the certificate was canceled in 1990. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner was complacent and failed to verify the dealer's registration status, thus sales tax was payable.

        The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not exercise due diligence. The Court found that the petitioner's argument of having seen the registration certificate was contradictory and unconvincing. The Court also distinguished the case from the Hari Ram Oil Co. judgment, noting that in the latter, the cancellation of registration certificates was not published, whereas in the present case, the petitioner failed to verify the registration status despite the cancellation being effective since 1990.

        The Court also referenced the judgment in Prince Plastics & Chemical Industries, emphasizing that the State should not lose its revenue due to the purchasing dealer's failure to provide ST-1 Forms. The selling dealer must bear the risk and can take action against the purchasing dealer if necessary.

        Conclusion:

        The High Court remanded the matter related to form No. 02AA-996226 back to the Tribunal for a fresh examination, directing the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 12.01.2015. However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding form No. 01AA-147012, ruling against the petitioner and in favor of the revenue, thus denying the deduction claim.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found