Important Head Notes




Composition Scheme - State Development Tax – U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 Section 7-D, 3-H - State Development Tax which is applicable on dealers having annual turnover of more than Rs.50 lakh is not applicable on the dealers who have opted for composition U/s 7-D of the Act.

Systematic Conscom Limited vs. State of U.P. and Others. 245 (All.)







Seizure of goods - U. P. VAT Act, 2008 - Dispute regarding taxability of commodity - Be decided by the Assessing Authority in assessment proceedings and not in ancillary or incidental proceedings under Section 48(7) of U.P. VAT Act.


Jain Irrigation System Ltd. vs. C.C.T., U.P., Lucknow 279 (All.)



Seizure of goods – For importing goods with Incomplete Declaration Form VAT 38 - U. P. VAT Act, 2008 Section 58, 48(7), 50 -Absence of Form 38 while importing goods into the State is not immaterial- Whatever be the legal position earlier, law as it stands today, is clear and on a plain reading of Section 50 of the VAT Act, it cannot be possibly said that absence of Form 38 is immaterial - Decision in Guljag Industries and Bajaj Electrical applied.


KMGS Road Signs Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.T., U.P., Lucknow 263 (All.)




Stock transfer - Job Work - Requirement of Form F - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Section 6-A - Dealer had filed appeal against the order of Allahabad High Court ( 2007 NTN Volume 35 Page 1) upholding the Circular Dated 28-11-2005 issued by Commissioner providing that declaration in Form F is necessary in case of job work to establish that inter-state movement of the goods is otherwise than sale. The counsel for the dealer has submitted that the appellant assessee will submit itself to the re-assessment proceedings and will file Form F with the concerned authority. The Court allowed filing of form and directed assessment by the assessing authority. Whether filing of declaration in Form F is mandatory for inter-state movement of the goods for job work etc? - Held - Since the assessee has requested the filing of declaration in Form F, the issue raised could not be decided on merits. However the decision of Allahabad High Court stands and by virtue of decision filing of form F is mandatory unless the issue is decided otherwise by Allahabad High Court or Apex Court.

Editor’s Note:- In the last para of judgment the Apex court has mentioned that various assessing authorities of the consignees are not issuing the declaration in Form F. The assessing authority while deciding the transaction should consider that the assessee is not able to file declaration in Form F for no fault of his. The observation is open for interpretation. It would have been in the fitness of the matter if the issue which was pending for long and was awaited decision of Apex Court should have been decided to finality. The dealers will have to bear the consequences for longer period of time mean while assessing authorities and Advocates will have merry time.


Ambica Steels Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 296 (SC)




Disclaimer : Use of Material on this web site is subject to terms and conditions.

Best viewed in I.E. 5.5 or higher.  © National Law Book Publications.