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>Petitioner denied Rural Development Cess waiver despite exemption eligibility due to already collecting amount from FCI</h1> <h3>M/s. Venkateswara Boiled & Raw Rice Mill Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Markapur and Others</h3> M/s. Venkateswara Boiled & Raw Rice Mill Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Markapur and Others - TMI Issues Involved:The judgment involves a writ petition challenging the non-extension of waiver of Rural Development Cess benefit for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and the demand notice issued by the D.C.T.O., Markapur. The issues include the legality of demanding Rural Development Cess and the payment of APGST amount in installments.Petitioner's Case:The petitioner, engaged in rice milling, challenges the demand of Rural Development Cess (RDC) beyond the MSP of paddy, citing various Government Orders (G.Os) restricting RDC levy. Despite G.Os waiving RDC and sales tax on paddy purchase value, the D.C.T.O. issued a demand notice for APGST and RDC. The petitioner seeks installment payment for APGST due to financial crisis.Respondent's Case:The respondent, while acknowledging the G.Os, argues that the petitioner collected tax/cess from customers but failed to remit to the State, leading to the demand notice. The respondent contends that G.Os do not cover non-remittance situations, as it results in unjust enrichment. The respondent justifies the legality of the demand notice and opposes exemption for the petitioner.Court's Decision:The Court notes the tax liability under APGST Act and the disputed RDC amount. It rejects installment payment for APGST, advising the petitioner to approach the relevant authority. Regarding RDC, the Court upholds the respondent's argument that exemption would lead to undue enrichment since the petitioner already collected the cess amount. As the petitioner did not challenge this fact, the Court dismisses the writ petition, denying relief to the petitioner.This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with tax remittance obligations and the limitations of seeking exemptions based on collected amounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
