|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 144 Records
-
1978 (1) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... No. 860, Industries, dated 24th May, 1972, has suspended the operation of all contracts, assurance of party agreements, settlements, awards, standing orders or other instruments in force to which the said relief undertaking is a party, or which may be applicable to the said relief undertaking immediately before 25th May, 1972. We do not see how this notification will get attracted on the facts of this case. That notification, in our view, gives relief to the relief undertaking from the obligations it has entered into with third parties prior to 25th May, 1972. The said notification will not enable the petitioner-company to claim relief as against a statutory tax liability. Therefore, the liability towards sales tax cannot be said to have been suspended by virtue of the said notification. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 158 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rted in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ravi Auto Stores 1968 22 S.T.C. 172. There, the learned Judges held that, in order to attract item 41, intrinsically the goods in question must be electrical goods and, secondly, their use cannot be had without electrical energy. Merely because an article cannot be used without electricity, it may not be decisive. It is necessary that, apart from that fact, the article, by its very nature, answers the description of electrical goods . With respect, we are in entire agreement with the test laid down by the Bench. If we apply this test, then surely the goods in the instant case would not fall under item 41. Accordingly, it is liable to be taxed under the general provisions as any other goods at 3 per cent and not at single point at 9 per cent as found by the Board. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the Board is directed to revise the rate of assessment as per the order of this Court. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 157 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 4,000 towards the demand due for the three quarters of the assessment year 1973-74. The respondents were not entitled to adjust it towards the interest demanded for earlier year. In the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that arrears for previous years were also due and the recovery authorities had received recovery certificates for those previous years dues. The recovery authorities were, therefore, clearly entitled to adjust whatever realisations were made towards any of the amounts mentioned in the recovery certificates. The petitioner could not validly earmark payments towards any particular demand. In any event, even if it be accepted that the petitioner could earmark the payments, yet since admittedly large amounts were still outstanding against the petitioner, the petitioner could not escape their recovery. In either view of the matter, it is not a fit case for interference. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... come to the conclusion that the synthetic essential oils which are sold by the appellants before us, the dealers, will not fall within item 51 of the First Schedule of the Act and that these oils cannot be taxed at the single point at the rate mentioned against that item. We have already extracted the new item 51 in the First Schedule of the Act, which was introduced by Act 7 of 1977. The scheme of that item is different. Scents and perfumes are placed separately in one sub-clause and various other items are mentioned afterwards. We are not concerned with the construction to be placed on that item 51 as it stands today and we safeguard ourselves by making it clear that we express no opinion with regard to item 51 of the First Schedule to the Act as it stands today. In the light of these discussions, we allow these appeals and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue passed under section 34 of the Act. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 155 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntention of the legislature that the powers under this section should be limited and restricted and that those members of the general public against whom they were to be applied should be provided with safeguards in order to prevent abuse of these powers. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. In that case also, the conviction of the accused persons under section 353, Indian Penal Code, had been set aside on the ground that the search had not been properly made in accordance with section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since in the instant case also, by not offering the receipt to the respondents, Shri K.K. Sayal, P.W. 1, did not act strictly in conformity with the provisions of section 14 of the Act, we hold that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge in their favour cannot be set aside. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no force in this appeal and order the same to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 154 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... over as incomplete or incorrect. We cannot understand how a return so made after several years could be accepted as complete and correct, more so when there were no regular accounts at all to justify the correctness or completeness of the accounts. So far as the penalty proceedings for the year 1973-74 are concerned, we are of the opinion that these proceedings are covered by sub-section (PA) of section 14 and the penalty has been rightly levied rejecting the entire return filed. The penalty proceedings (in T.R.C. No. 29 of 1977) were initiated pursuant to the best judgment assessments. We, therefore, affirm the order of the Tribunal in so far as its decision in respect of the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1973-74 is concerned. T.R.C. No. 29 of 1977 is, therefore, dismissed with costs and the other revisions are allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. T.R.C. Nos. 24 to 28 of 1977 allowed. T.R.C. No. 29 of 1977 dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 153 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re possible in regard to the construction of the provisions in question. In such cases and situations, the decisions have held that the view more beneficial to the assessee must prevail see Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. 1970 77 I.T.R. 518 (S.C.)., Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I v. Vegetable Products Ltd.1973 88 I.T.R. 192 (S.C.)., Commissioner of Incometax, West Bengal II v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. 1973 89 I.T.R. 236 (S.C.). and Commissioner of Incometax, Lucknow v. Madho Pd. Jatia 1976 105 I.T.R. 179 (S.C.). There are a number of other authorities also. But we do not think it necessary to multiply citations. In the result, we accept the revision-petitioner s case and allow these tax revision cases and set aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in these revision cases. The cases will go back to the Appellate Tribunal for passing a fresh assessment in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 152 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alse return notwithstanding the filing of the revised return see Kanga and Palkhivala, The Law and Practice of Income-tax , 7th Edition, Vol. 1, page 826, and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Badridas Ramrai(1) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Angara Satyam(2). In the instant case, the position is that the assessee filed the revised return only after his shop was inspected by the Sales Tax Inspector on 17th November, 1964, who detected the concealment of the turnover. Having regard to the extent of concealment, it follows that the previous return must have been false to the knowledge of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee cannot get the benefit of the revised return. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the imposition of penalty was proper. 9.. For the reasons given above, our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the department. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (1) TMI 151 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iners for being made available in the market, remains the same as pine-apple, there is no consumption of the commodity nor any process of manufacture of other goods . 8.. The decision of the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1960 11 S.T.C. 827 (S.C.). notices the illustration of raw bananas being peeled, sliced and even sweetened with sugar or honey or the like of orange being peeled and cleared or sliced for being made suitable for consumption and of groundnut being peeled and got ready for roasting or consumption. In Joseph v. State of Kerala 1967 20 S.T.C. 261 1967 K.L.J. 620., again, it was held that prawn pulp made out of raw prawns was not a commercially different article and that no manufacture was involved in making prawn pulp. 9.. In the result, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere in revision with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. We dismiss this revision petition but make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 150 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e department. It is needless to point out that when the representatives of the aforementioned six firms swore affidavits before the department, they must have indicated their respective addresses and it would have been quite easy for it to get their service effected on the given addresses. The department cannot press into service its own negligence to serve a witness for calling upon the assessee to do so on its behalf. For this reason also we hold that the order of reassessment passed by the Assessing Authority stands vitiated. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the order of reassessment passed by the Assessing Authority and the orders passed by the first and the second appellate authorities and remand the case to the Assessing Authority so that the same may proceed in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The petitioner-firm is directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on 30th January, 1978. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 149 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as to be observed that I gave time to the respondent on 20th December, 1977, suggesting that the seized books may be returned to the petitioner after receiving an undertaking from the petitioner that the petitioner would produce those books at any time, the respondent wanted the production of those books to which the counsel for the petitioner was agreeable. But when the case came up for hearing on 5th January, 1978, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that he was not agreeable to return the seized books, etc., even on such undertaking by the petitioner and it was thereafter I proceeded to hear the writ petition. 14.. For the reasons stated above, the rule is made absolute. Respondent is directed to return all the seized articles which are set out in the impugned order together with copies or notes made, if any, from the seized documents within fifteen days from today. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of the petition. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 148 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... occasion as required under section 12-B(1). It, therefore, follows that on every occasion when the amount fell short of the amount payable by above 15 per cent, section 12-B(2) was attracted. 3.. The fact that section 12-B(2) requires the authority concerned to determine the penalty at the end of the year would not make any difference, because, that only prescribes the point of time at which penalty has to be determined, but does not exonerate an assessee who has not paid the tax payable under section 12-B(1) in time, but who has paid it before the determination of the penalty, as under section 12-B(2) the liability is incurred as soon as default is committed in making payment within the prescribed time every month and what remains to be done at the end of the year is only the determination of the actual amount of penalty to be paid. 4.. We do not, therefore, find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 147 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on and not articles of gold and silver. The second submission of Sri Srinivasan is that, since no articles of gold and silver had been manufactured by the appellant, the question of paying sales tax on their turnover did not arise and since the appellant had not therefore withheld any sales tax which he was liable to pay, it should be held that the tax payable under section 6 was exempt from payment under the said notification. His contention is plainly untenable because the exemption that is granted under the notification is in respect of the tax on the purchase turnover of articles of gold and silver which are used in the manufacture of articles of gold and silver sold by him. Since admittedly the appellant has not manufactured any articles of gold and silver, no exemption can be claimed under the notification. There is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. The appeals are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100, one set. Appeals dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 146 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... that the application filed by the appellant is competent and the court has got power to grant leave at this stage, we put to the learned counsel for the official liquidator as to what he had to say on the merits of the case as to the grant of leave. The learned counsel for the official liquidator could not raise any valid objection to the grant of leave except to contend that the official liquidator s defence in the suit on merits should not be prejudiced. It is needless to state that the granting of leave as such will not and cannot prejudice the official liquidator s defence on merits in the suit. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of Ramaprasada Rao J., and grant leave to the appellant herein to proceed with the suit. The result of this will be that the suit will be effective only from this date, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above (Bansidhar Shankarlal v. Md. Ibrahim 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 21). There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (1) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... ardar Khan, AIR 1928 Lah. 359, wherein it is held that either an amendment of the plaint has to be made or the suit has to be dismissed. A case dealing with the joining of a party under Order 1, rule 10, where one of the defendants was already dead, is Sringeri Mutt Sri Jagathguru Chandra Sekhara Bharathi Swamigal v. Komarasami Goundan, AIR 1917 Mad. 849. This judgment in fact shows that even though an application under Order 22, rule 4 was rejected, another application can be moved under Order 1, rule 10, to join the transferees or legal representatives in their personal capacity. To clarify, the legal representatives in this case have to be joined not as legal representatives, but in their own right, whether or not they have succeeded to the claim mentioned in the main case will have to be decided on the merits. The present application cannot be allowed, but orders will be passed under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code in the main case. This application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1978 (1) TMI 140 - HIGH COURTOF CALCUTTA
Directors - Power of ... ... ... ... ..... t on being assessed on the cash basis. Under section 291 of the Companies Act, the directors have power to change the method of accounting by themselves. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence and found that there was no mala fide motive in changing the method. Furthermore, the new method has been regularly followed and in the subsequent years the department has accepted the said method. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that the assessee could elect to be assessed on the basis of cash system of accounting and directed the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment on that basis. There was evidence upon which the Tribunal could come to this conclusion. The findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged as perverse or as bared on no evidence. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of opinion that the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. mdash I agree.
-
1978 (1) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Meetings and proceedings – Company Law Board’s power to call annual general meeting ... ... ... ... ..... y covers the point, however, is the categoric opinion of Sharma J. in S. Niranjan Singh v. Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association 1917 47 Comp. Cas. 285 (Punj.). Therein also the validity of a meeting of the company and the election held therein was sought to be challenged. The learned judge relying on the aforementioned two authorities concluded as follows (page 286) In view of this I hold that this petition is not competent before me and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a civil suit. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Before me, no cogent argument has been raised to assail the correctness of the view expressed in Niranjan Singh s case 1977 47 Comp. Cas. 285 (Punj.) referred to above. As at present advised, I see no reason to take a contrary view. Following the same it is held that the present petition is not maintainable. The preliminary issue is decided in favour of the respondent and the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (1) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Managing director – Tenure of appointment, Inherent powers of Court ... ... ... ... ..... records, property and cash would be taken over by the applicant. I accordingly appoint Shri S.N. Nijjar, Barat-Law, as the Commissioner for the said purpose. Mr. N.S. Kharbanda is directed to produce the keys of the two almirahs and also of the safe contained therein before the Commissioner who shall open the said two almirahs and the safe and after making an inventory of the record and the cash and other articles therein deliver over the same to the applicant, Shri Ajaib Singh Bachhal, the incumbent managing director of the company. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner at 12 noon tomorrow at the registered office of the company. The respondent, Shri N.S. Kharbanda, shall produce the keys mentioned aforesaid in order to have the inventory, etc., made as directed above. In case the respondent, N.S Kharbanda, does not appear or produce the keys, etc., the Commissioner is hereby authorised to have the almirahs and the safe opened and get the necessary inventory made.
-
1978 (1) TMI 135 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... lect, the deeming provision is not attracted and the basis or foundation of winding-up, viz., that the company is unable to pay its debts falls through. I hold on the materials at my disposal that (1) the defence of the company is in good faith and is one of substance (2) the defence disclosed in the sworn affidavit shows that it is likely to succeed and (3) the company has adduced prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends (vide paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit and documents 1 to 7 filed along with it). These are the basic principles on which the court acts while considering an application for winding-up of a company for non-payment of disputed debts. Vide (1) Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Ltd. 1972 42 Comp. Cas. 125 (SC) and (2) Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami 1965 35 Comp. Cas. 456 (SC). In the result the application stands dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1978 (1) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Debts of all descriptions to be admitted to proof and Appeal by creditor
........
|
