Amendments in Various Acts administered by Maharashtra sales tax department due to budget\u00a0proposal for the year 2014-15<\/p>\n

To give effect to the Budget proposals for the year 2014-15, a Bill (Legislative Assembly Bill No. XIX of 2014) to amend the various Acts, \u00a0administered by the Sales Tax Department has been passed by the Legislature and has received assent of the Governor on 26th June 2014. The Act (Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 2014) is published in the
\nMaharashtra Government Gazette dated 46th June 2014. Schedule ‘A’ and ‘C’ have been amended by notification u\/s 9(1) of the MVAT Act, 2002, (reference no. 2) issued on 11th July 2014.<\/p>\n

The Acts, administered by the Sales Tax Department, amended are as follows:<\/p>\n

1 The Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962.<\/p>\n

2 The Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975.<\/p>\n

3 The Maharashtra Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987.<\/p>\n

4 The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002<\/p>\n

The effective date for each of the amendment has been mentioned in the para explaining the respective amendment.<\/p>\n

The salient features of the amendments are explained below:- <\/strong><\/p>\n

Amendments to Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 (SCPT Act):-<\/p>\n

1. Insertion of section 12AA:
\nSection 34 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002(MVAT Act) empowers, the authorities appointed under that Act, with special powers to recovery any sum due under the Act as arrears of land revenue. For this purpose, these I authorities have powers of the corresponding authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC).<\/p>\n

A new section 12AA has been inserted w. e. f. 26th June 2014 in the SCPT Act, which makes these provisions for recovery under the MVAT Act applicable for the purpose of recovery under the SCPT Act. As per this section, the authorities appointed under the SCPT Act shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the authorities appointed under the MLRC. The provisions contained in Section 34 of the MVAT Act, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis for the purposes of recovery under the SCPT Act.<\/p>\n

2. Amendment of Section 12B:
\ni Section 12B of the SCPT Act empowers the State Government to remit or exempt the tax payable by issuing a notification, for the purposes, specified in clauses (a) to (d) in the said section.<\/p>\n

ii Clause (e) has now been added on 26th June 2014 in the said section to enable State Government to issue a notification, providing for exemption from the payment of SCPT by the factories to enable payment of fait and remunerative price to the farmers for the year 2013-14.<\/p>\n

iii The amended provision has been informed to Sugar Commissioner. If the Sugar Commissioner informs to Commissioner of Sales Tax that a sugar factory has not paid fair and remunerative price to the farmers, then the exemption availed\/granted shall stand withdrawn.<\/p>\n

B Amendments to Maharashtra State Tax on Professions Trades Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (PT Act)<\/p>\n

Amendment to section 6:
\nThe provision regarding late fee has been introduced in the PT Act from 1st August 2012, by virtue of sub- section (3) in section 6. An employer who flies a late return is required to pay late fee of rupees 1000\/- before uploading such. Jate return. Late fee is payable irrespective of the reasons for delayed return. Late fee is mandatory and cannot be exempted by any profession tax authority.<\/p>\n

A proviso has been added to sub-section (3) of section 6, w.e.f. 26th June 2014, to empower the State Government to issue a notification in the Official Gazette and exempt, in public interest, the whole or, any part of the late fee, payable by the notified class or classes of employers. The State Government may also mention in such notification the periods and conditions, applicable for the purpose of exemption. This proviso is similar to the proviso of section 20(6) of the MVAT Act, 2002. A separate Trade Circular will be issued after the State Government issues notification.<\/p>\n

2 Amendment to Section 27 A:
\ni Clause (e) of section 27A provides for exemption from payment of profession tax to the parents or guardian of any
\nperson suffering from mental challenge. However, such person, himself, was not eligible for exemption.<\/p>\n

ii Many persons with Intellectual and Development Disabilities (Mental Retardation) are nowadays undergoing vocational training and therefore are getting employed<\/p>\n

iii Clause (e) in section 27A has now been substituted w.e.f. 26th June 2014 . Person with Intellectual and Development Disabilities (Merital Retardation) has also been exempted from payment of profession tax. The exemption available to the parents and guardian of such person continues.<\/p>\n

iv To claim exemption, a certificate from a psychiatrist working in the Government Hospital would be required to be
\nproduced once before the assessing authority, in respect of the first assessment year.<\/p>\n

3. Amendment to Schedule:<\/p>\n

Schedule I, appended to the PT Act provides for rates of tax for different classes of persons. Entry 1 in this Schedule contains slab wise rates of tax, applicable to salary and wage earners. Persons drawing salary\/wages up to rupees 5,000\/- per month were I exempted from the payment of tax.<\/p>\n

Entry 1 in Schedule I has been amended w. e. f. 1st July 2014 to increase the exemption limit to rupees 7,500 per month. Therefore, the persons, drawing salary\/wages up to rupees 7,500 per month shall not be liable to pay tax.<\/p>\n

This enhanced exemption limit would be effective from 1st July 2014. Therefore, tax need not be deducted, if the
\nsalary or wages, paid on or after 1st July 2014 do not exceed rupees 7,500 per month. It may be noted that an employer is liable to deduct tax from the salary\/wages payable, before such salary\/wages is paid to that person.
\nTherefore, the enhanced exemption limit would be applicable for the salary\/wages, which I are disbursed on or after 1st July 2014, irrespective of the month for which such salary\/wage is being disbursed.<\/p>\n

iv, The rates of PT for other slabs of salary\/wages remain unchanged.<\/p>\n

C. Amendments to luxury Tax Act<\/p>\n

1. Amendments to clause (b-1A) and clause (d-1 ) of Section 2:<\/p>\n

Amendments to section 2 are technical in nature. [effect date 26th June 2014]<\/p>\n

Clause (b-1A) and (d-1) contain the definitions of “Certificate of Entitlement” and “Eligibility Certificate” respectively. These definitions have references to the various Incentive Schemes for Tourism Projects.<\/p>\n

Reference to the Tourism Policy, 2006 has now been added in these clauses.<\/p>\n

2. Amendment to section 3:
\nThe slabs for the levy of Luxury Tax have been modified w. e. f. 1st July 2014.<\/p>\n

Luxury Tax was not payable if the charge for luxury provided in a hotel was up to rupees 750 per day per accommodation. From 1st July 2014, this exemption limit has been increased to rupees 1000 per day per accommodation. Therefore, Luxury Tax shall, not be payable if the charge for luxury provided in a hotel is up to rupees 1,000 per day per accommodation.<\/p>\n

Where the charge provided for luxury in a hotel is between rupees 1,001 and rupees 1,500 per day per accommodation, tax shall be payable at 4%.<\/p>\n

If such charge is more than rupees 1,500 per day per accommodation, then tax shall be payable at 10%.<\/p>\n

Insertion of section 22B:
\nl. The Tourism Policy-2006 provides for incentives to the Tourism Unit, depending upon the Zone in which it is situated. For this purpose, the State is divided into three zones i.e. Zone-A, Zone-B and Zone-C.<\/p>\n

ii. New sub-section 22B has been inserted w.e. f. 26th June 2014. As per this newly inserted section, the Certificate of Entitlement shall be granted to the Eligible Unit situated in Zone B and Zone C only. In other words, the units situated in Zone A comprising of areas of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban District, Navi Mumbai, Thane, Pune<\/p>\n

Municipal Corporation, and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation shall not, be granted the Certificate of Entitlement. The units, situated in rest of Maharashtra, shall be eligible for the Certificate of Entitlement, subject to the conditions, mentioned as under:<\/p>\n

a) The Eligibility Certificate, under the Tourism Policy-2006, issued by the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC), should have been granted to the unit on or after 26th June 2014.<\/p>\n

b)The Tourism Policy, 2006 provides benefits to an Expansion Unit on the basis of increase in fixed capital investment or increase in capacity by at least 50%, as compared to the last financial year. However, in view of the newly inserted section 22B, the Certificate of Entitlement shall not be granted to Expansion Unit, which has not added new capacity.<\/p>\n

In order to issue Certificate of Entitlement, there has to be minimum increase in investment or capacity by more than 50% as compared to last financial year. The various scenarios are explained below:
\nI.Increase in investment by say 40% and increase in capacity by 30%: In this case, Certificate of Entitlement shall not be granted as neither investment nor capacity has increased by more than 50%.<\/p>\n

II. Increase in investment by say 80% and increase in, capacity by 30%: In this case, Certificate of Entitlement shall be granted as investment has increased by more than 50%.<\/p>\n

III.Increase in investment by say 20% and increase in capacity by 70%: In this case, Certificate of Entitlement shall be granted as capacity has increased by more than 50%.<\/p>\n

IV.Increase in investment by say 70% and no increase in capacity: In this case, Certificate of Entitlement shall not be granted as there is no increase in capacity.<\/p>\n

The benefits under the Luxury Tax Act would be admissible only to the extent of increased capacity, as explained in the succeeding paras.<\/p>\n

c) If any Unit has taken benefit of Luxury Tax exemption, for any earlier period, even though the Certificate of
\nEntitlement was not issued to him, then recovery of the tax shall be done from him along with the applicable interest and penalty.<\/p>\n

d) For computing the benefits under the Act, to an Eligible Expansion Unit, the following principles, shall be
\napplicable:<\/p>\n

a. If such unit has maintained separate accounts of receipts and is able to identify the receipts pertaining to the
\nincreased capacity, then the benefits shall be calculated solely on the basis of such identification.<\/p>\n

b. If such unit has not maintained separate accounts of receipts and is not able to identify the receipts pertaining to the increased capacity, then the benefits shall be calculated after applying the following formula:<\/p>\n

Turnover of receipts X increase in capacity Eligible turnover of receipts=——————————————————————
\nTotal capacity after such Increase<\/p>\n

A.Amendments to Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act)<\/p>\n

1. Amendment to section 3:
\nI.Sub-section (4) of section 3 contains turnover limits for registration, in respect of importers and other dealers. The turnover limit for an importer is rupees 1 lakh in a year and for all other dealers, it is rupees 5 lakhs in a year.
\nII. Sub-section (4) of section 3 has been amended. The turnover limit for dealers, other than importers, has been increased from rupees 5 lakh to rupees 10 lakh. This amendment is effective from 26th June 2014.
\nIII.If such dealer’s turnover of sales has exceeded rupees 5 lakh before 26th June 2014, then he would be required to apply for registration. However, if the turnover upto 26th June 2014 does not exceed rupees 5 lakh, then ‘such a dealer would be liable for’ registration only when the turnover exceeds rupees 10 lakh in the year.<\/p>\n

IV.The turnover limit for registration of an importer remains same.<\/p>\n

2. Amendment to Section 16:
\nI.Sub-section 6 of section 16 provides for the contingencies in walch a dealer can apply for cancellation of his reqlstratlon.
\nII.In the said sub-section, a new clause (c) has been added [effect date 26th June 2014]. The newly added clause (c) provides one more ground for cancellation of registration i.e. the turnover of sales or purchases of a dealer, other than an importer, does not exceed rupees ten lakh during the year 2013-14.<\/p>\n

III.Sub-section (6) has been amended to provide that such dealer may apply for cancellation of his registration on or before the 30th September 2014. The registration officer, after scrutinizing the application, may cancel the registration of such a dealer w. e. f. 1st October 2014, in case such dealer has applied up to 30th September 2014.<\/p>\n

IV.Needless to say, in case if the turnover of such a dealer during 2013-14 was less than rupees 10 lakh but has exceeded rupees 10 !akh during the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, then the registration officer shall not cancel the registration in\u00a0 2014-15.<\/p>\n

3.Amendment to sub-section 6 of section 20:
\nI. Late fee of rupees five thousand has been introduced, under sub-section (6) of section 20 w. e. f. 1st August 2012, for filing of late returns. Late fee was payable irrespective of period of delay. Thus, a dealer whose return is late by 1 day was also liable to pay late fee of rupees five thousand.<\/p>\n

II.Sub-section 6 of section 20 has been amended w.e.f.July 2014 to provide that if a dealer files return within 30 days after expiry of the due date for such return, then he shall be liable to pay late fee of rupees two thousand only instead of rupees five thousand. For a delay beyond 30 days from the expiry of the due date, late fee of rupees five thousand shall be payable.<\/p>\n

III. This exemption shall be applicable for such late returns, filed on or after 1st July 2014.<\/p>\n

IV.The relaxation of 10 days period for uploading returns, explained in Trade Circular No. 16T of 2008, 31T of 2008 and 1T of 2009 shall continue provided the payment of tax as per return is made on or before the prescribed due date.<\/p>\n

\n

4. Amendments to Section 23:<\/p>\n

a. Deletion of sub-section (9) of section\u00a023: A dealer was able to apply in Form 305 requesting the Commissioner of Sales\u00a0Tax to issue directions to the assessing authority in the assessment\u00a0proceedings in his case. Sub-section 9 of section 23 has been deleted w. e. f.\u00a026th June 2014 and hence a dealer shall not be entitled to apply in Form-305.\u00a0This amendment shall be effective from 26th June 2014. Therefore, no directions\u00a0shall be given on or after 26th June 2014, irrespective of the fact that the\u00a0application in Form 305 was filed prior to 26th June 2014.<\/p>\n

ii. Addition of proviso in sub-section (10)\u00a0of section 23<\/p>\n

A dealer was can be assessed either for the\u00a0whole year or for a return period or for a particular transaction, under
\ndifferent sub-sections of section 23. Certain type of dealers are required to\u00a0file returns in more than one form type. For example, a dealer holding\u00a0Entitlement Certificate under the Package Scheme of Incentives and having a\u00a0non-Eligible Unit is required to file returns in Form-234 as well as in\u00a0Form-231. The assessing authority for both these units could be different in\u00a0most of the cases. The PSI Unit is required to be assessed for every year. Once\u00a0an assessing officer, in respect of the PSI Unit issues notice for assessment,\u00a0the other assessing officer, in respect of the non-PSI Unit loses jurisdiction\u00a0to assess.<\/p>\n

Sub-section
\n(10) has been amended [effect date 26th June 2014]. For the assessment periods\u00a0commencing on or after the 1st April 2011, a dealer, who is required to file\u00a0multiple returns, may be assessed separately for each return type.<\/p>\n

iii. Amendment to sub-section 11 of section\u00a023 :<\/p>\n

a) A dealer, who is assessed under section\u00a023(2), 23(3) or 23{ 4) and if he is not able to attend or remain present at the\u00a0time of hearing when the assessment order had been passed, can apply in Form\u00a0316 under section 23 (11) within 30 days from the date of service of the\u00a0assessment order. After verifying that the contention of applicant is correct\u00a0the assessing authority can cancel the assessment order.<\/p>\n

b) Previously, there was no limitation\u00a0period for passing an order u\/s 23(11), after receipt of the application in\u00a0Form 316.<\/p>\n

c) Sub-section 11 of section 23 has been\u00a0amended [effect date 26th June 2014] to provide that after verifying that\u00a0contentions of the dealer are correct and that the prescribed conditions have\u00a0been fulfilled, the assessing authority shall cancel the order in writing\u00a0within 3 months. This period of 3 months shall be computed from the end of the month\u00a0in which application in Form-316 has been made.<\/p>\n

d) If the assessing officer does not pass an\u00a0order under section 23(11) within the said period of 3 months, then the\u00a0assessment order shall be deemed to be cancelled.<\/p>\n

e)The applications u\/s 23(11), filed up to\u00a026th June 2014, shall be disposed off by the assessing authority before 30th
\nSeptember 2014.<\/p>\n

iv. Amendment to sub-section (12) of section\u00a023 .<\/p>\n

Sub-section
\n(12) of section 23 provides that a fresh order of assessment, after the dealer’s\u00a0application in Form 316 , may be passed before the expiry of a period of\u00a0eighteen months from the date of service of the cancellation order u\/s 23(11).
\nAs per the amended section 23(11), in case, an assessing officer does not pass\u00a0the cancellation order u\/s 23(11) within the aforesaid period of 3 months, then\u00a0the assessment order shall be deemed to be cancelled. An amendment has been\u00a0made to sub- section (12) [effect date,26th June 2014] to provide that in case\u00a0the assessment order is deemed to be cancelled then for the purpose of passing\u00a0a fresh assessment order, the date on which the assessment order is deemed to\u00a0have been cancelled shall be considered for the purpose of computing the period\u00a0of 18 months.<\/p>\n

5. Amendment to section 26 :<\/p>\n

i.\u00a0The appellate authority or the Tribunal, may grant stay\u00a0to the order appealed against, by directing the appellant to deposit the\u00a0disputed amount whether partly or wholly.<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0A proviso had been added to sub-section (6) of section 26\u00a0with effect from 1 st May 2012, providing that in case an appellant seeks three\u00a0adjournments or fails to attend for hearing on three dates, then the appellant\u00a0shall make part payment of 15% of the disputed dues,<\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0A proviso has been inserted in sub-section (6) of section\u00a026 w.e.f. 26th June 2014 to govern the procedure regarding granting of stay In\u00a0appeals against any order, ‘in which claim against declarations\/certificates\u00a0(forms) has been disallowed 01) the grounds of non-production., The amended\u00a0provisions are applicable only for the appeals filed on or after 1st July\u00a02014.The amendment is explained as follows:<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0If such appeal is filed after two years from the end of\u00a0the year, to which such claim relate, then the appellant would be required to\u00a0make 100% payment of tax, in. respect of, such claim, in order I to get stay.<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0If such appeal is filed before the expiry of two years\u00a0from the end of the year to which the claim relates, then the dealer must\u00a0produce the required forms till the end of the period of two years, otherwise\u00a0the stay, if already granted, shall stand vacated, in respect of such dues. The\u00a0appellant, in this situation, may either produce \\the required forms or make\u00a0payment of 100% tax in respect of such claims to continue the stay.<\/p>\n

c)\u00a0In case, an appellant receives some forms, after the\u00a0assessment order is passed, then the appellant can always produce such forms\u00a0before the appellate authority before part payment is I fixed. The appellate\u00a0authority, in such case, would not insist on any payment of tax, in respect of\u00a0such forms, produced before him.<\/p>\n

d)\u00a0The amended provision shall be applicable to appeals\u00a0before the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.<\/p>\n

e)\u00a0It may be noted\u00a0that the amended provision is applicable only to the appeals filed on or after\u00a01st July 2014.<\/p>\n

f)\u00a0Needless to say that part payment for dues\u00a0other than those related to declarations, shall be governed by the existing\u00a0provisions.<\/p>\n

6. Amendments to section 29 :<\/p>\n

1. \u00a0Amendment\u00a0to sub-section 3:<\/p>\n

a) Section 29(3) provides that penalty may\u00a0be imposed if a person or a dealer has concealed particulars or has knowingly\u00a0furnished inaccurate\u00a0particulars,\u00a0misclasslfled, knowingly claimed , excess set off of a transaction liable to\u00a0tax etc.<\/p>\n

b) Penalty u\/s 29(3) may be imposed\u00a0“equal to the amount of tax found due as a result of any of the acts”\u00a0(i.e. up to the amount of tax due), enumerated above.<\/p>\n

c) Sub-section 3 of section 29 has now been\u00a0amended w.e.f. 26th June 2014. The sales tax authorities would continue to have\u00a0discretion as regards the decision to impose penalty. Once the authority, in an\u00a0appropriate easel decides to impose penalty under section 29(3), then it must impose\u00a0minimum penalty, equal to 25% of the amount of tax found due. The maximum\u00a0amount of penalty under section 29(3) would continue to be 100% of the amount\u00a0of tax due.<\/p>\n

ii. Insertion of new sub-section 7(A):<\/p>\n

a) Late fee has become applicable for all\u00a0late returns which are filed on or after 1st August 2012. Late fee is payable\u00a0even for a return, which pertains to periods prior to 1st August 2012, if\u00a0filled on or after 1st August 2012.<\/p>\n

b) Before the introduction of late fee,\u00a0penalty under section 29(8) was being imposed in case of late returns. There\u00a0are number of cases in which penalty under section 29(8) had already been\u00a0imposed prior to 1st August 2012 but the dealer has filed returns on or after\u00a01st August 2012. In such a situation, the dealer would be burdened with penalty\u00a0under section 29(8) of rupees 5,000 as well as a late fee of rupees 5,000 under\u00a0section 20(6).<\/p>\n

c) Newly inserted sub-section 7(A) [effect\u00a0date 26th June 2014]provides that in case of a dealer, who has filed late\u00a0return on or after 1st August 2012 and has also paid the late fee under section\u00a020(6), penalty, if already imposed u\/s 29(8), in respect of such return, shall\u00a0not be recovered. However, if in any case a dealer has paid the penalty as well\u00a0as the late fee then the penalty amount shall not be refunded to him.<\/p>\n

iii. Insertion of new sub-section\u00a011(A):<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0Section 29(11) provides for a limitation period of 8\u00a0years for imposing penalty under any of the sub-sections of section 29. In\u00a0certain situations, an assessment order\/appeal order is passed after 8 years.\u00a0However, in view of the limitation period of 8 years in section 29(11) for imposing\u00a0penalty, the assessing authority\/appellate authority is unable to impose\u00a0penalty even though facts of the case may be otherwise appropriate for imposing\u00a0penalty.<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0Sub-section 11(A) has been inserted [effect date 26th\u00a0June 2014] in section 29 which provides that limitation period of 8 years shall\u00a0not be applicable for imposing penalty under section 29, while passing an order\u00a0under the Act. In other words, authority may impose penalty under section 29\u00a0even after a period of 8 years from the end of the year containing the said\u00a0period, while passing an order under any other provisions of the Act. However,\u00a0the authority is not permitted to pass an independent penalty order under\u00a0section 29 after a period of 8 years.<\/p>\n

iv. Deletion of sub section (12) of section\u00a029:<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0Sub-section (12) of section 29 provided that, for\u00a0imposing penalty, above a particular monetary limit prior approval of the\u00a0supervisory authority must be taken. A Sales Tax Officer or an Assistant\u00a0Commissioner was required to obtained prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner\u00a0if the penalty amount exceeded rupees 5 lakh. Similarly I the Deputy\u00a0Commissioner was required to obtain prior approval of the. Joint Commissioner\u00a0if the penalty amount exceeded rupees 10 lakh.<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0Sub-section (12) has been deleted [effect date 26th June\u00a02014] and therefore prior-approval for imposing penalty from the supervisory\u00a0authority shall not be required.<\/p>\n

c)\u00a0This waiver of prior-approval from the supervisory,\u00a0authority shall be applicable for the penalty to be imposed on or after 26th\u00a0June 2014.<\/p>\n

7. Amendment to Section 30 :<\/p>\n

i.\u00a0Sub-section 4 of section 30 provides that, interest at\u00a025% shall be payable if a dealer files a return or a revised return in the\u00a0contingencies specified in that sub-section.<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0Interest @ 25% u\/s 30(4) is payable on the additional tax\u00a0payable as per return or revised return. Once a dealer opts to file return or a\u00a0revised return after any of the contingencies specified in section 30(4), then\u00a0the payment of interest under section 30(4) becomes mandatory. This interest is\u00a0payable irrespective of the, amount of the additional tax liability or the\u00a0grounds for such additional tax liability.<\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0A proviso has been added to section 30(4), which provides\u00a0that interest under section 30(4) shall not be payable on account of the\u00a0additional tax liability arising due to non-production of declarations or\u00a0certificates.<\/p>\n

iv.\u00a0Second proviso has been added to section 30(4), This\u00a0proviso provides that if the amount of tax paid as per revised return is less\u00a0than 10% of the aggregate amount of “tax paid as per the original\u00a0returns”, then interest under section 30(4) shall not be payable.<\/p>\n

v.\u00a0An Explanation has also been added in sub-section (4) to\u00a0explain the terms” “tax paid as per the original, returns” and\u00a0“tax paid”.<\/p>\n

vi.\u00a0The term, “Tax paid as per the original\u00a0returns” shall, include the tax paid as per the original returns and also
\nthe amount of tax paid as per the revised returns, which are filed before the\u00a0commencement of proceedings, specified in clause (a) or before the receipt of\u00a0intimation specified in clause (b) of sub section (4).<\/p>\n

vii.\u00a0A revised return filed, as advised by the “accountant”\u00a0in Form 704 shall be considered as an “original return” if such\u00a0revised return is filed:<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0before the commencement of audit, inspection, search\u00a0& seizure proceedings etc. as referred to in section 30(4)(a),or<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0before the receipt of intimation in form 604, as referred\u00a0to in section 30(4)(b).<\/p>\n

viii.\u00a0in view of the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of\u00a0M\/s Taurus Auto Dealers V\/s D.P. Amberao [49 VST 339] it is clarified that the\u00a0benefit of the amended provision shall be available to the dealers filing\u00a0revised return on or after 26th June 2014. The dealers, who have already filed\u00a0the revised return prior to 26th June 2014 shall not be eligible for the\u00a0benefit of this amended provision.<\/p>\n

8.Amendment to section 31A :
\ni.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Section 31A\u00a0empowers the State Government to issue notification providing for Tax\u00a0Collection at Source(TCS) from the successful bidders in auctions of sand\u00a0conducted by various authorities. A notification has accordingly been issued on\u00a02nd February 2013 providing for TCS @ 10%.
\nii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Now clause (c)\u00a0has been added in Section 31A(1) providing for TCS for minor minerals.\u00a0Therefore, now the State Government has been empowered to issue notificatIon\u00a0for TCS, in respect of minor minerals. The authority awarding quarrying lease\u00a0or quarrying permit, in respect of minor minerals to a dealer, would be\u00a0required to collect the tax amount at the notified rate, after the State\u00a0Government issues notification.
\niii.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0In view this amendment, consequential\u00a0technical amendments have been made to sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).
\niv.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 TCS on minor\u00a0minerals shall be collected after the issue of notification in this respect.<\/p>\n

9. Amendments to section 61:<\/p>\n

i.\u00a0Sub-section (1) provides for the contingencies in which a\u00a0dealer becomes liable to file an Audit Report in Form-704 in clauses (a), (b)\u00a0and (c).<\/p>\n

ii.\u00a0Clause (a) provided that a dealer, whose turnover of\u00a0sales or purchases exceeded rupees 60 lakh in any year, was liable to file Form\u00a0704.<\/p>\n

iii.\u00a0The said clause (a) has been substituted [effect date\u00a026th June 2014] The substituted clause (a) now provides that a dealer:<\/p>\n

a)\u00a0whose turnover of sales plus the value of goods\u00a0transferred to any other place of his business or of his agent or principal,\u00a0situated outside the state, not by reason of sale, or<\/p>\n

b)\u00a0Whose turnover of purchases has exceeded rupees one crore\u00a0shall be liable to file the audit report in Form 704.<\/p>\n

iv.\u00a0This amendment would be applicable for the Audit Report\u00a0for 2013-14 onwards. Therefore, the dealers, whose turnover of either sales or\u00a0purchases has not exceeded rupees one crore in the year 2013-14 would not be\u00a0liable to file Form 704.
\ni. It may be noted\u00a0that for the purpose of computing the limit of turnover for audit report, the\u00a0branch transfers\/consignment transfers to other states would be considered and\u00a0added to the turnover of sales. However, the branch transfers\/consignment\u00a0transfers received from outside the state shall not be added to the turnover of\u00a0purchases.<\/p>\n

v.\u00a0As per clause (b) of sub seetion(1),a dealer, holding any\u00a0of the Liquor Licenses, mentioned in that clause was required to file Form 704,\u00a0irrespective of the turnover limit mentioned in clause (a). The said clause (b)\u00a0has now been deleted. Hence, a dealer, holding any of the Liquor Licenses would\u00a0not be required to file Form 704, unless the limits provided in clause (a) are\u00a0exceeded.<\/p>\n

vi.\u00a0Sub-section (2) provides that if a dealer liable to file\u00a0Form 704 fails to file then after hearing the dealer, a penalty, within\u00a0prescribed limits, equal to one tenth per cent of the total sales may be\u00a0imposed. In the case of M\/s. Ankit International, the Bombay High Court has\u00a0ruled that the penalty u\/s 61(2) is discretionary in nature. It held that lithe\u00a0discretion must extend both to whether a penalty should be imposed and on the\u00a0quantum. II<\/p>\n

vii.\u00a0Proviso to this sub-section provided that if such late\u00a0Form 704 is filed within one month from the end of the prescribed period and if\u00a0the dealer proves satisfactorily that the delay was on account of factors\u00a0beyond his control, then the penalty shall not be imposed. This proviso is now\u00a0deleted. In case of late filing of audit report, imposing of penalty shall be\u00a0governed by section 61(2).<\/p>\n

viii.\u00a0Dealers, required to file audit report in Form 704 are\u00a0not required to file e-annexures along with the last return of the year. The\u00a0dealers, whose turnover was between rupees 60 lakh and rupees 1 crore during\u00a0the year 2013-14, may not have filed the e-annexures along with their return\u00a0for March 2014. Such dealers would now be required to file e-annexures along\u00a0with their return for the period ending on 30^{th<\/sup> September, 2014.\u00a0Instructions, in this regard, have already been given on the Department’s\u00a0web-site. Necessary amendment to the MVAT Rule is also being proposed.<\/p>\n}

10. Amendment to section 63:\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

l. Sub-section (7) provided that if during\u00a0the course of any proceedings, it appears to the authority that the quantum of\u00a0tax payable or the amount of set-off or refund as disclosed in the returns or\u00a0as recorded in the books of accounts by the dealer, is incorrect then it may\u00a0send an intimation to such dealer. The intimation is sent in Form 604. Sending
\nof intimation in Form 604 was not mandatory.<\/p>\n

ii. Now, the word “may” has been\u00a0substituted with the word, “shall” in sub-section (7), [effect date\u00a026th June 2014]. Therefore, now intimation has become, mandatory in every case,\u00a0where the authority finds that the quantum of tax payable or the amount of set\u00a0off or refund as disclosed in the returns or recorded in the books of accounts\u00a0is incorrect.<\/p>\n

iii. Necessary amendments to MVAT Rules are\u00a0also proposed. It is proposed that in case of Computerized Desk Audit (CDA),\u00a0intimation shall be in form 604A in all other cases, intimation shall be in\u00a0form 604. The new Form 604A and amended Form 604 will be notified very soon.<\/p>\n

iv. It is also provided that in every case,\u00a0where the audit proceedings are closed due to dealer accepting findings of
\nauditing officer, partly or fully, closure intimation in Form 605 shall be\u00a0issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amendments in Various Acts administered by Maharashtra sales tax department due to budget\u00a0proposal for the year 2014-15 To give effect to the Budget proposals for the year 2014-15, a Bill (Legislative Assembly Bill No. XIX of 2014) to amend the various Acts, \u00a0administered by the Sales Tax Department has been passed by the Legislature and … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[93,37],"class_list":["post-1537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mvat-cst","tag-budget","tag-mvat"],"yoast_head":"\n