|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 147 Records
-
1981 (10) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... v. S.S. Yalamali 1968 21 STC 305 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has taken a similar view and I am in respectful agreement with the same. One factual controversy is being raised before me and that is with reference to the pendency of the proceedings under section 24(2)(b) of the Act. While the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said proceedings are pending, Mr. Lokapriya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Government Pleader, states that no such proceedings are pending and they have been withdrawn. Since I have adjudicated the contention raised by the petitioners on principle, I think the proper order to issue would be to direct the first respondent not to prosecute the remedies both under clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 24 concurrently and simultaneously, but he is at liberty to resort to one of the two, only, at a time. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the legislature that the entire gamut of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were to be applied, then it could have very well said that all the provisions of the said Act would apply to the levy of surcharge. In that event, section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act would also have been attracted by reference. However, in the present case, the provision is more restrictively worded, and therefore, on the language of the provision, we do not consider that there is any scope for levy of penalty under section 22 for collection of surcharge. It is true that the assessee who has collected the surcharge in contravention of what is contemplated by the statute goes scot-free, but that is a consequence of the way in which the provision has been worded. We do not, therefore, consider that there is any error in the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tax case is accordingly dismissed. But under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x Act, 1922, we have earlier expressed our view that section 57 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, did not in any manner fetter the powers of the civil court in summoning the documents. We therefore consider that Velayutha Nadar v. South India Tobacco Co. 1973 32 STC 202 was wrongly decided. The result is that the applications are ordered as prayed. The learned Additional Government Pleader wanted the plaintiff to specify the documents of which he required production. The learned counsel for the applicants stated that he would do so. In fact, in one of the applications before us, there is a specification of the particular documents. In the other also, the particulars would be given and the summons would then issue in the light of the particulars so furnished. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer concerned will be summoned only for the purpose of formally providing the documents produced. These applications are ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had not suffered tax, then it would fall within item 80(b), and therefore, taxable at the rate of 4 per cent single point. This part of the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. The sales tax authorities have levied penalty for the belated submission of the return. The return included not only the turnover in horse gram flour, but also other materials. Penalty has been levied only because there has been a delay in the submission of the return. As pointed out in National Insulated Cable Co. of India Limited v. State of Madras 1968 22 STC 475 where a belated return was accepted and an assessment was made on that basis without invoking best judgment assessment, section 12 of the Act does not authorise the revenue to levy penalty. In these circumstances, we do not consider that there is any scope for levy of penalty, and therefore, the penalty was rightly cancelled by the Tribunal. The result is, the revision is partly allowed. No costs.
-
1981 (10) TMI 166 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e business is carried on . We came across a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Binny Ltd. 1982 49 STC 17 (SC) AIR 1980 (SC) 2038 where the meaning of ancillary has been indicated. Even if disposals are considered as ancillary, it is necessary that the other tests of business should extend to such transactions. On looking at the matter from a broad perspective, we are inclined to agree with the Additional Tribunal that the transactions relating to disposal of scrap and new parts which were no more necessary for the business of the assessee did not constitute business and the assessee could not be treated as a dealer in respect of such transactions. 8.. Our answers to the questions referred, therefore, are against the revenue and we hold that the assessee is not a dealer in respect of the dealings referred to above. 9.. The assessee shall have its costs. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 300 (three hundred). BEHERA, J.-I agree.
-
1981 (10) TMI 165 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he appeal without the payment of such tax or after the part payment of such tax. However, there is no provision for demanding security. Mr. A.S. Khaira, the learned counsel appearing for the State, has referred to sub-section (6) of section 20 of the Act, reproduced above, and argued on that basis that the appellate authority can pass any order in an appeal. This argument is based on a misconception. Section 20(6) of the Act comes into play when an appeal has been entertained, whereas sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Act takes care of the situation before the entertainment of the appeal. To that stage only sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Act applies. The appellate authority has not been given any powers to demand any security therein. Sub-section (6) of section 20 of the Act is not applicable at this stage. Consequently, I allow this writ petition and quash the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal demanding security. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve been under bona fide impression that no such tax could have been levied or collected in respect of such inter-State sales and the assessee had not collected the Central sales tax in respect of that period on the ground that no tax could have been levied or collected. In other words, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the non-collection of tax after the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarasimhiah Setty s case 1965 16 STC 231 (SC) must be held to be non-collection by the dealer on the ground that no such tax could have been collected or levied. In the ultimate analysis it is a question which is to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The result, therefore, is that this reference should be accepted and we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the State Government. The State Government shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (10) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bifurcating into two sub-heads, what was really a single consideration for the sale, there being actually no separate charging of freight, as such, in any of the transactions. The facts in the present case, however, are different. As the Tribunal itself has clearly found in its order, the assessee in this case separately charged for freight in every transaction. The only reason which the Tribunal advanced for negativing the claim for deduction was that the contract of sale, as such, was not for delivery of the bricks at the dealer s site, but for delivery at the work-spot of the customer or other place designated by the customer. This, as we said, is not based on a proper understanding of the provisions of rule 6. In the result, this revision is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. There will be a direction to delete the transport charges from the taxable turnover. The assessee will have his costs from the State. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 162 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ticular case that this discretion was wrongly exercised, it would not be proper for the Board to interfere with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Such interference is likely to simplify the appellate power. In fact, there is no loss of revenue by the exercise of discretion by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this case. If really on examination of the books, it is found that a higher turnover is liable to be taxed, then certainly the assessing authority can exercise his power and tax the turnover accordingly. Thus there is no prejudice to or loss of revenue by the manner in which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had exercised his power. In our opinion the power of remand was properly exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, the order of the Board cannot be said to be correct. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 161 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... operties attached subsequently should be put to auction. It has been pointed out to us by the standing counsel that all the properties attached are movable properties, and it will not be convenient in case they are sold in separate lots. It was further stressed that in case separate auctions are held it will entail further expenses which will further reduce the amount which the department will realise from the auction sales. Under the law there is no obligation on the department to sell the properties piecemeal. Considering the fact that all the properties which have been attached are movable properties, it will be equitable that all these properties are sold at a single auction. The petitioners will be entitled to adjustment of the amount fetched at the auction after deducting the necessary expenditure for conducting the auction. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order is made as to costs. The stay order dated 14th August, 1975, is discharged. Ordered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 160 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ount due under the Act or these Rules. Rule 39. (1A) In case of dissolution of a firm, every partner thereof, and in case of discontinuance of an association, every member thereof, shall be jointly and severally responsible for payment of tax due under the Act or these Rules in respect of the business of the firm or the association as the case may be, conducted before its dissolution or discontinuance. Our own conclusion by reading the provisions of sections 2(c), 4, 7, 11, 11A, 16 and 17 of the local Act and rules 10, 12(1)(b), 39(1) and 39(1A), for the reasons recorded above, is that these provisions do not constitute a clear, express or any implied provision containing a power to assess a dissolved firm for its pre-dissolution turnover. The result is that there was no provision to assess or reassess a dissolved firm until the lacuna was filled up by inserting section 12F prospectively. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 159 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Additional Tribunal was justified in holding that even in the common parlance they were understood as two different items. There was no scope for one item to pass for the other. Once this is the conclusion, it must follow that the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, had come to the correct finding that when law prescribed sale of fish to be subject to purchase tax, sale of prawn could not be covered by the entry and purchase tax could not be levied on dealings in prawn. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is against the revenue and we hold that the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified in coming to the conclusion that prawn was not included in the expression fish appearing in the entry serial No. I of the schedule relating to levy of purchase tax over goods notified under section 3-B of the Act. The assessee would be entitled to costs of the reference which we assess at Rs. 200 (two hundred). BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 158 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch penalties, before the commencement of this Act shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have always been imposed, taken or done as validly and effectively as if the provisions of sub-section (1) had been in force when such penalties were imposed or proceedings or acts or things were taken or done and........... In view of the validating provision, the imposition of penalty could not be called in question and though there was no clear provision authorising imposition of penalty for delayed returns, as indicated by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 1976 37 STC 489 (SC) Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax , the validating statute was intended to uphold the levy and on the basis of the same, we must hold that the levy of penalty is not open to challenge. Our answer is in favour of the revenue. 3.. As there is no appearance of the assessee, there is no assessment of costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 157 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ration in form No. I contemplated in Notification No. SRO. 633/77 dated 9th September, 1977, with reference to serial No. 25 is also a declaration of similar type. The note appended is to the following effect In case of goods liable to sales tax this declaration is to be furnished to the selling dealer. In case of goods liable to purchase tax, this declaration is to be attached to the return of the dealer. Since ours is a case where purchase tax is leviable, to avail exemption, the declaration has to be furnished along with the return. The submission of the learned standing counsel is wholly untenable. 4.. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is against the revenue and we must hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was correct in allowing tax relief to the assessee. The assessee shall have its costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100 (one hundred). BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 156 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that they were sugar in the wider sense of that term. Sri S. B. L. Srivastava, appearing for the dealer, urged that that part of the notification which excluded batasha and illaichidana from the exemption given to sugar was ultra vires. It is obvious that such a submission is not open to him in these proceedings. In consequence, the revisions are allowed. The decision of the Additional judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Varanasi, in both these cases is set aside. The dealer is held liable to tax upon its turnover of batasha and illaichidana manufactured by it in the years in question. Its liability in that regard shall be computed in accordance with law. A copy of this order shall be sent to the appropriate Tribunal, which has in the meantime replaced the revising authority, for appropriate action, as required by section 11(8) of the Act. The Commissioner of Sales Tax shall be entitled to his costs in these proceedings which are assessed at Rs. 50 in each case. Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 155 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 8. For the reasons already given, these cases are also distinguishable. Our attention was also drawn to Kamadhenu Metal Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1971 27 STC 536. This case dealt with a corresponding provision of appeal in the Madras Sales Tax Act. The case supports our construction of section 38(5) of the Sales Tax Act. However, in the Madras Act there is no provision for reference to the High Court and that is one point of distinction which the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out. 7.. For the reasons given above, we hold that power of dismissal of an appeal for default of appearance conferred by rule 59 on an appellate authority is valid. It follows that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, i.e., the Board of Revenue, was competent to dismiss the petitioner s appeal for default of appearance. 8.. The petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (10) TMI 154 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent assessment by completing the assessment under the other provisions of section 12 of the Act, it must follow that the assessing officer was entitled to proceed on the returned figure and take into account the other figure which he found to have been left out of the accounts. This would necessarily justify addition of the actually left out portion of the turnover to the returned figure. There was no occasion for the estimate. We would accordingly answer the second question by saying that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer was not correct in enhancing the turnover beyond the amount actually found to be out of the accounts as indicated in the return. Otherwise stated, it was open to the assessing officer to add the amount which he found to have been left out. 3.. In view of what we have stated above, questions Nos. (1) and (3) appear to be irrelevant and need not be answered. No costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 153 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pt from taxation under the Orissa Sales Tax Act merely because it has been separately charged at the point of sale by the dealer. Otherwise stated, it merges into sale price and while determining the amount of tax, octroi has to be taken into account. For the reasons indicated in the unreported decision with which we are in agreement, we would hold for the revenue and answer the question referred to us by saying that On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, octroi duty does form a part of the sale price under the Orissa Sales Tax Act for raising the demand of sales tax. The assessee goes unrepresented in spite of notice. There shall be no order for costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 152 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fore us. The copies of the orders passed by the Assessing Authorities in Haryana belie the stand of respondent No. 2. The mere fact that an alternative remedy may be available is no bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226. It is one of the considerations that may weigh with the court in entertaining the petition and granting the relief. Since the tax under the Central Act has been collected by the Haryana authorities and Delhi authorities on behalf of the Union of India on the same transactions twice and there is liability once only, it is the fittest case that the petitioner should not be asked to avail alternative remedy. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned orders (annexures B, C and D only) are quashed. A mandamus is also granted against respondent No. 2 to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 46,582.91 within six months from today. The petitioner shall also have costs against respondent No. 2. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. Ordered accordingly.
-
1981 (10) TMI 151 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch a method that they do not lose their identity at all, and as we have just said, if khallis are not sold and there be demand for sale of leaves, the dealer would be entitled to restore the khallis to the earlier form of leaves and cater to the demand of the customer by supplying leaves. Such being the case, there can be no justification for the contention that khalli is different from siali leaves. 5.. Though two questions have been referred, they are really one, and our answer would be that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that there was practically no change when siali leaves were pinned together as siali khalli and there was no substantial change in the identity to attract liability as a distinct separate goods at the point of sale so as to be liable to tax as an unspecified goods. 6.. The assessee did not appear. We, therefore, make no order for costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree. Ordered accordingly.
........
|
