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

        High Court finds flaws in tax assessment order, stresses importance of proper classification

        Sterling Bio Energy Systems P. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Saligramam Assessment Circle, Chennai

        Sterling Bio Energy Systems P. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Saligramam Assessment Circle, Chennai - [2015] 79 VST 397 (Mad) Issues:
        1. Challenge of order of revision of assessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
        2. Classification of the product for taxation at either 4% or 12% under different entries of the First Schedule.
        3. Consideration of brand name versus actual product composition in tax assessment.
        4. Lack of discussion in the impugned order regarding the classification of the product.
        5. Imposition of penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Act without proper grounds.

        Analysis:
        1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, challenged the order of revision of assessment under section 16 of the Act. The initial assessment accepted the petitioner's claim of a 4% duty rate on sales of Automatic Power Factor Control Systems. However, a subsequent assessing officer proposed a revision to tax the product at 12% based on a clarification issued by the Department. The petitioner objected, citing the product's composition and classification under the First Schedule. The High Court found the impugned order lacking in discussion on the classification issue and held it to be legally flawed.

        2. The key dispute revolved around the correct tax rate applicable to the Automatic Power Factor Control Systems. The petitioner argued that the product fell under entry 18 of Part B of the First Schedule, warranting a 4% tax rate. The respondent contended that the product should be taxed at 12%, as per a Departmental clarification. The Court noted that the respondent failed to address the specific composition of the product containing electronic integrated circuits and assemblies, which would place it under the 4% tax bracket. The Court emphasized the importance of proper classification based on the product's components.

        3. The petitioner highlighted the distinction between the brand name "Automatic Power Factor Control System" and the actual composition of the product as microprocessor-based. The petitioner's argument focused on the technical aspects of the product, emphasizing its classification under the relevant entry of the First Schedule. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's explanation regarding the product's composition and criticized the lack of consideration given to this aspect in the impugned order.

        4. The Court criticized the impugned order for its failure to provide a detailed discussion on why the product should be classified under a specific entry of the First Schedule. The Court noted discrepancies in the respondent's approach, particularly the lack of consideration given to the product's composition of electronic integrated circuits and assemblies. The Court highlighted the importance of a thorough analysis in tax assessments to ensure accurate classification and proper taxation.

        5. Regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Act, the Court found it unjustified as the proceeding was a revision of assessment under section 16, not a case of non-disclosure of turnover. The Court deemed the penalty unwarranted and ordered its deletion. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order, and granted the respondent the option to issue a fresh notice for reclassification if deemed necessary, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found