Suo motu power of revision is usually exercised when the attention of the Commissioner is drawn to the mistakes apparent on record. Section 80 of the WBST Act does not place any restrictions that suo motu revision should be done only when the mistakes are pointed out by the Revenue authorities and in the interests of revenue. Hence, it was held that the Commissioner had erred in not considering the dealer’s grievance regarding determination of taxable specified purchase price. It was also observed that if a statute has conferred a power, such a power had to be exercised if the circumstances warrant without being deterred by the apprehension that, if exercised, too many applications may be filed. Failure to exercise a power vested in an authority under law is an error and requires to be rectified by the higher forum.

Mamoni Industries v. CTO (2010) 29 VST 38 (WBTT)

Estimation of turnover done by the Intelligence Officer was for the purpose of determining the compounding fee for dropping penalty and prosecution proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer was not duty-bound to accept the same turnover for the purpose of determining the tax liability, which was to be determined on the basis of seized records.

State of Kerala vs Molly Babu (2010) 29 VST 75(Ker)

Where the petitioner could not demonstrate that there was a separate and distinct contract between the petitioner and his customers that transportation charges had been paid by them, freight was includible in sale price. In the present case, the risk of transportation during transit till the goods were delivered had been borne by the petitioner. The petitioner had charged a uniform sale price to which freight at different rates depending on the distance of the place of the customer had been added. It was held that freight formed part of sale price.

Shekhar Bhojanna vs State of Karnataka (2010) 29 VST 140 (Kar)

Where the contractor had brought goods from outside the State and stored them in his godown before appropriating the same to works contracts executed in the State, he could not validly claim that the works contract was of interstate nature not liable to tax prior to 11-5-2002.

Dosal Ltd. vs State of Kerala (2010) 29 VST 158 (Ker)

In the case of a company selling beverages, bottles and crates were to be treated as "Fixed Capital Investment" since for the manufacture of soft drinks, bottles and crates were "apparatus" within the meaning of section 4A Explanation 4(b)(i) of the UP Trade Tax Act.

Varun Beverages Ltd. vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP (2010) 29 VST 178 (All)

Sugar globules, which are made almost wholly out of sugar and used in homeopathic medicines were held to be covered by Entry B-39 of Schedule B to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, which read as "Sugar including Khandsari and Boora". The entry was held to be illustrative and not exhaustive.

State of Haryana vs Swiss French Laboratories (2010) 29 VST 254 (P & H)

The appellant was a wholly-owned Government of India company and was entrusted with the task of administering specific contracts between Dept. of Space and private parties for providing "space segment capacity" in Transponders attached to the INSAT satellite belonging to the Dept. of Space. The leased capacity was to be provided 24 X 7 and if there was an interruption, the Dept. had to make good the interruption. According to the HC, the fact that a customer could surrender a part of the leased capacity clearly implied that the leased capacity was in the control of the customer although the technical operations were the responsibility of the Dept. of Space. In other words, "legal control" was with the customer while "technical control" was with the Dept. of Space. The HC held that it was a case of lease of goods namely Space segment capacity as there was a transfer of effective control to the customer. Further, the HC proceeded to hold that as the Agreement was entered into in the State of Karnataka and at the time of the Agreement was concluded, the goods were available for transfer of right, Section 6 of the KVAT did not hit the transaction in question.

Antrix Corporation Ltd. vs ACIT (2010) 29 VST 308 (Kar)

(Special leave against the judgment has been granted by the SC on March 12, 2010 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 6288 to 6291 of 2010)

The Kerala HC held that Ujjala, laundry whitener could not be treated on the same footing as Acid violet paste from which it was made as in the process of conversion, a new commodity with a distinct composition, identity and use emerged. That is to say that an industrial raw material which was used as a dyeing agent for silk and woollen clothes at high temperatures is converted into a laundry whitener. The contention of the appellant that common parlance or commercial parlance test could not be applied once the classification was to be done according to HSN Code numbers was not acceptable. Even though classification of items under the VAT regime is based on HSN numbers, it does not mean that the products made out of items with HSN numbers should be classified as the original items with the same HSN number. Hence, when the products made from industrial raw material are commercially different with distinct use and purpose, it cannot be treated as the raw material from which it is made.

M.P Agencies vs State of Kerala (2010) 28 VST 44 (Ker)

Freight charges and handling charges charged separately in the bill to the extent they were in excess of the actual charges incurred was held liable to form part of sale price under the CST Act and the dealer could not avail the benefit of exclusion clause to take such excess collection out of the definition of "Sale price"

Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP vs Gulshan Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2010) 28 VST 244 (All)

In a case where the dealer had submitted Form F and backed it by supporting material like Sale patties, Invoices rendered by agents and Excise Gat pass cum Consignment Note and there was no incriminating evidence of Hundi / Cash being received upfront from the agent, the Court held that the transactions were in the nature of Stock transfer notwithstanding the fact that the goods were sold by the agent on the same day that the goods were received by them.

State of Tamil Nadu vs PMP Iron & Steel India Ltd. (2010) 28 VST 370 (Mad)

The Madras HC reiterated its judgment in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. vs State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 129 STC 287 (TNTST) and held that sale of goods by transfer of documents to title to goods prior to customs clearance from the bonded warehouse would be sales in the course of import as "Customs station" as defined under the Customs Act, 1962 included warehouse from which the goods were cleared.

State of Tamil Nadu vs Rajan Universal Export (Mfrs.) P. Ltd. (2010) 28 VST 279 (Mad.)