Punjab Government has promulgated an Ordinance dated 17-08-2011 vide Notification No. 33-Leg/2011 whereby proviso to section 8(1) and section 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 have been amended. Proviso to Section 8(1) deals with rate of tax on declared goods whereas section 62(5) deals with pre-deposit of 25% before entertaining of any appeal under PVAT Act, 2005.
Power of inspection, search, and seizure can be easily found to be in every taxation law. The purpose of these powers is always to detect any tax evasion on the part of dealers but these powers are always ancillary to the power of collection of tax of the State and are provided only for the proper collection of tax. While exercising these powers one must keep in mind the objects of such powers.
If you want to choose lump sum scheme for payment of tax in works contracts without maintaining any books of accounts under Punjab VAT Act, 2005, you should think twice before choosing it. Proviso to section 8(2-A) of Punjab VAT Act and Rule 15(6) of Punjab VAT Rules deals with the lump sum payment of tax under Punjab VAT in works contracts.
When works contract is sub-contracted there is only one taxable event and between main contractors and sub-contractor only one is liable to pay tax on the goods incorporated in the works contract. Herebelow this issue is discussed in the light of decision of Supreme Court and P&H High Court in the context of VAT provisions especially under Punjab VAT Act, 2005.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in an important case namely Lajpat Rai Chanana V State of Haryana & others (2011) 38 PHT 390 (P&H) that input tax credit to a works contractor executing the works contract will be justified if the contractee has already paid the tax on the goods supplied by him to the contractor. The assessee was a works contractor for executing various works for the Government and its authorities. For executing the work, the State and its authorities supplied material to the petitioner (Contractor) which was treated as sale. Since the said authorities had paid the tax while purchasing the said material before supplying the same to the petitioner, the petitioner claimed the benefit of input tax credit. It is held by the Hon’ble High Court that in such case assessee (Contractor) is entitled to input tax credit paid by the contractee.
According to section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961, where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the same or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of A.O., the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.
As we know C forms are required to be submitted by a seller with the sales tax authorities after obtaining the same from the purchaser of goods if the sale is an interstate sales and CST has been charged at concessional rate of 2% as per the requirement of section 8(4) of CST Act 1956. Sometimes a dealer if has made an interstate sales at concessional rate of CST against C form then afterwards, the purchaser doesnot provide the requisite C form to the seller then in such case difficulties are faced by the seller at the time of finalizing of his assessment proceedings.
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhushan Power & Steel Limited v State of Punjab & others has granted interim stay to the petitioners on the levy of entry tax u/s 3-A of Punjab Tax on Entry of Goods into Local areas Act 2000(hereinafter called as the Act), by considering it to be as ultra-vires of the State Government’s power to levy tax under the Constitution of India. Here the grounds on which stay has been granted are being discussed and an attempt has been made to make readers understand the order of the High Court in the said case.
As we know the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has already stayed the levy of entry tax in Punjab in the case of M/s Bhushan Steel v State of Punjab case on 28-03-2011 and also in other similar writ petitions challenging the levy of entry tax in Punjab on 08-04-2011. But the interim stay were applicable only to the persons who have filed writ petitions and the relief regarding deferment from payment of entry tax was available only to the concerned persons who have filed writ petitions in the High court as a result it was giving rise to filing of more and more writ petitions on the similar issue resulting in multiplicity of litigation in the High Court.
I had given a clarification two days back in an article titled ‘PVAT Act 2005 – Declared Goods except wheat and paddy will be taxable @ 4.4% w.e.f 08/04/2011’ that surchage is also applicable on declared goods other than Paddy and wheat, since the ceiling rate of tax was enhanced from 4% to 5% by the Central govt in the Budget of 2011-12.
