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

        Superintendent's Untimely Tax Assessment Deemed Unauthorized

        M/s. Nandini Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Tripura, The Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, The Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-V,

        M/s. Nandini Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Tripura, The Commissioner of Taxes, ... Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of tax deduction by KSS from the petitioner’s bills.
        2. Determination of VAT liability under the TVAT Act.
        3. Time-barred assessment and refund claim.
        4. Superintendent’s failure to adjudicate the tax dispute.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of Tax Deduction by KSS from the Petitioner’s Bills:
        The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in laying and installation of pipes, challenged the deduction of Rs. 24,21,007/- from its bills by KSS during the year 2011-12. This deduction was directed by the Superintendent of Taxes. The petitioner contended that it was a service provider liable to service tax and not VAT, as there was no transfer of property in goods during the execution of the work contract.

        2. Determination of VAT Liability under the TVAT Act:
        The Superintendent of Taxes believed that the petitioner had imported taxable materials for the work, thus falling under Section 4 of the TVAT Act, necessitating VAT deductions. The petitioner, however, maintained that the transaction was service-based with no sale of goods, thus not liable for VAT. Despite the petitioner’s objections and submission of returns, the Superintendent did not pass a formal assessment order to resolve this dispute.

        3. Time-Barred Assessment and Refund Claim:
        The Superintendent informed the petitioner on 23.04.2018 that the assessment for 2010-11 to 2012-13 had become time-barred under Section 33 of the TVAT Act, while the period for 2013-14 was still open until 31.03.2019. The petitioner sought a refund of the excess tax collected, but the revisional authority dismissed the revision petition on the grounds that it could not take cognizance of the Superintendent’s communication.

        4. Superintendent’s Failure to Adjudicate the Tax Dispute:
        The court emphasized that the Superintendent failed to adjudicate the petitioner’s objections by not passing a formal assessment order. The Superintendent allowed the assessments to become time-barred, thus retaining the provisionally collected tax without due process. The court held that the Superintendent’s inaction deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to appeal or challenge the taxability of the transaction.

        Conclusion:
        The court concluded that the Superintendent’s failure to assess the petitioner’s tax liability within the statutory period and the subsequent retention of the provisionally collected tax was without authority of law. The Superintendent must refund the amount of Rs. 24,21,007/- to the petitioner with statutory interest within four months. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with all pending applications also disposed of.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found