Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (10) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the Assistant Commissioner, Fast Track assessment circle/R2. 2. The petitioner claims to be an authorised dealer in motor vehicles. Interstate sales of vehicles had been made from Tata Motors in Pune and Uttaranchal to Tamil Nadu between the months of September, 2007 and February, 2008. The vehicles are stated to have been sold thereafter domestically and tax paid at the rate of 12.5%. According to the petitioner, it has remitted Value Added Tax (VAT) to the tune of Rs. 4,05,82,548/- (Rs. 4.05 crores approx.) as against the sales effected domestically. 3. The petitioner is also liable to tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990 (in short 'Entry Tax Act'). Admittedly, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sidered by one of us (Dr.Anita Sumanth,J) in the case of C.A.Motors V. The Commercial Tax Officer (W.P.Nos.36839 to 36841 of 2015 dated 10.09.2019) and accepted. The relevant portion of the discussion is at paragraph 28, reading thus: '28. Thus, a claim for converse credit can certainly be accepted, seeing as the intention is for a unified levy and Section 4 is intended to 'reduce' tax liability by integration of the liabilities under both the entry tax and VAT Statutes. However, such benefit is not absolute but conditional and only upon satisfaction of the circumstances as noted and discussed above..........' 7. The claim has been specifically accepted in the additional counter dated 04.09.2024 filed by R2 (see ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... VAT paid. The confusion arises from the two conflicting statements that had accompanied the petitioner's reply dated 12.04.2008 (pages 16 and 17 of typed set dated 02.05.2008). The two statements are as follows: Statement I (page 16) L.G.BALAKRISHNAN & BROS LTD. COIMBATORE ENTRY TAX DETAILS FOR THE MONTH FROM SEPT-2007 TO FEB-2008 MONTH VALUE ENTRY TAX VAT PAID SHORT EXCESS Sept-07 67970593 8496324 9171951   675627 Oct-07 52211110 6526389 5997092 529297   Nov-07 47986288 5998286 5839795 158491   Dec-07 55579953 6947494 6111438 836056   Jan-08 51961144 6495143 8022691   ....