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 rules in favor of revisionist, clarifies tax rate, emphasizes evidence consideration. Remitted for new order.</h1> <h3>M/s Heinz India Private Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax</h3> M/s Heinz India Private Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax - TMI Issues:1. Tax imposition on old, discarded materials covered by a specific notification.2. Rejection of benefit of declaration certificate under Section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.Analysis:1. The revisionist challenged the tax imposition on old, discarded materials and unserviceable items. The dispute centered around the rate of tax applicable, as per notifications dated 1981 and 1992. The assessing authority taxed certain items at varying rates, including 10%. However, the revisionist argued that the amended notification prescribed a 4% tax rate for the disputed items. The court found that previous authorities had overlooked the amended notification, leading to an incorrect tax imposition. The court clarified that for the relevant assessment year, the tax rate on such items should be 4%, not 10%, as per the amended notification.2. The second issue involved the rejection of the applicant's claim based on the declaration certificate filed after the first appeal. The Tribunal cited Section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which limits the submission of additional evidence unless the assessing authority wrongly refused it or it was not within the assessee's knowledge earlier. The applicant obtained the declaration certificate post the first appeal decision, leading to the rejection of the claim. However, the court noted that the certificate was issued after a considerable delay and was produced promptly upon receipt. The court deemed the rejection unjustified, emphasizing that the delay in obtaining the certificate did not warrant dismissal of the claim.In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the revisionist on both issues. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for appropriate action, directing a new order under Section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act within three months. The judgment rectified the tax rate discrepancy and highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence in tax disputes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
