|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 220 Records
-
1995 (10) TMI 228 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... ble and learned friend, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. For the reasons he gives, I, too, would dismiss the appeals. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading a draft of the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. For the reasons given by him and with which I agree, I, too, would make an order in the terms he has proposed. Lord Steyn. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by noble and learned friend, Lord BrowneWilkinson, and for the reasons which he has given, I, too, would dismiss the appeals. Declaration 7 in each of orders of Court of Appeal set aside and cases remitted to special commissioners to determine when liability incurred in each case. Appeals otherwise dismissed. Taxpayer companies to pay half Crown's costs in High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords save that Crown should pay taxpayer companies' costs occasioned by further argument in House of Lords on 11 May 1995.
-
1995 (10) TMI 227 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt has acted arbitrarily. The Central Government appears to have followed the scheme underlying Rule 3(3)(b) and has assigned the year of allotment on the basis of the date on which the substantive appointment of Shri O.S. Singh become operative keeping in view the year of allotment of the junior-most directly recruited officer who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of such substantive appointment of Shri O.S.Singh. In view of our conclusion, as aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the year of allotment as well as inter se seniority between Shri Singh and Ashwini Kumar, as determined by the Central Government in its letter dated 23rd July, 1985, is restored. It must be held that the year of allotment of Shri Singh is 1970 and he is to be treated senior to Shri Ashwini Kumar. Both these appeals are accordingly allowed and in the circumstances with no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 226 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Central Sales Tax Rules read with Section 6 - A of Central Sales Tax Act. 5. The learned Standing Counsel was unable to refer to any material on the record which may show that the finding recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal were uncalled for. The respondent assessee was not given any opportunity to cross - examine the Delhi dealer. The Tribunal has rightly held, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that if the purchaser who had issued Form 'F' to the assessee had not entered the goods in his account books than the assessee cannot be held responsible for the same. Further the reassessment was not liable to be sustained in absence of any other evidence to prove that the assessee had not effected the sales against Form 'F' to the said purchaser. 6. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact and does not give rise to any question of law. 7. The revision is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants are estopped from recalling such fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents subject of course to following due procedure of law and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, on which aspect there is no dispute between the parties. If any lenient view is taken on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts of the present cases cannot be permitted. For all these reasons, therefore, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the original applications filed by the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases there will be no order as to costs all throughout.
-
1995 (10) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents for recovery of possession. May be, because the finding was set aside by appellate court. Why this was not done is not within our jurisdiction to enquire. All that we can say is that the area of the land of the suit is 34.9 bighas and interest of justice would be met if a compact area of 10 bighas is left with the appellants and the decree for possession is made executable only in respect of the remaining area namely an area of 24.9 bighas. The appellants shall be treated as Protected Tenants in respect of ten bighas of land. The Tehsildar concerned shall partition the land between the parties as directed by us. The appellants shall surrender the area failing to the share of the respondents within one months of the order of Tehsildar. The order of the Tehsildar shall be final. The judgment of the courts below including that of the High Court shall stand modified to that extent. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above but without any order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 223 - PRIVY COUNCIL
... ...
... ... ..... ognition of income. If upon its true construction the Income Tax Act 1976 requires the "profits or gains" of a business to be computed without deducting part of the cost of the business, it cannot be right, tempting as it may be, to compensate for the anomaly by manipulating the ordinary rules for the recognition of income. Fortunately their Lordships do not think that such measures are needed in this case. The taxpayer also advanced a further alternative argument based upon the complicated group of sections 64B to 64M which are headed "Accrual treatment of income and expenditure relating to financial arrangements." In view of the conclusion they have reached on the question of deductions, it is unnecessary for their Lordships to say anything about this argument and they prefer not to. Their Lordships will humbly advise, Her Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The commissioner must pay the taxpayer's costs before their Lordships' Board.
-
1995 (10) TMI 222 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ion to the order enhancing assessable value by adding royalty charges received by the appellants, both the members have concurred. Brother K.S. Venkataramani, has given detailed exposition both of nbsp law nbsp and nbsp of nbsp facts, nbsp and nbsp having nbsp gone nbsp through nbsp the nbsp same, nbsp I nbsp find myself in agreement with the same, and hence I also concur with the same. emsp emsp Sd/- (P.K. Desai) Dated 9-10-1995 Member (J) 31. emsp By majority view, the appeal is partly allowed, and the appeal so far as it relates to enhancement in assessable value by addition of expenses incurred for advertisement stands allowed and the order of the adjudicating authority to that extent is set aside, whereas the rest of the order is confirmed subject to modification that royalty recovered in relation to soda water bottles, shall stand excluded. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Lajja Ram) (P.K. Desai) (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (T) Member (J) Member (T) 18-10-1995 18-10-1995 17-10-1995
-
1995 (10) TMI 221 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... if the goods transported are to come under item No. 49 in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and after the amendment under Act 5 of 1995 tax leviable will be at the rate of 10 per cent. But if the goods are to come under item No. 120, then the tax will be at the rate of 20 per cent. According to the Revenue, the goods transported would come under item No. 120. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein submits that the goods cannot be an article coming under any of the items. This is a matter which has to be decided by the statutory authority for the first instance after giving proper opportunity to the respondent herein. But, in the meanwhile, there will be an interim direction to the appellant herein to release the goods covered by exhibit P3 to respondent herein on its executing a bank guarantee to the extent of 50 per cent of the amount directed to be given as security under exhibit P3. Appeal stands allowed as above. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e and its sale was only second sale, it was entitled to claim exemption of its sales as second sales. 10.. In 1994 93 STC 185 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Raman and Co. the Supreme Court while confirming the decision rendered in Govindan and Co. 1975 35 STC 50 (Mad.) held no duty is cast upon the assessee to show that his sellers have paid tax at first point. 11.. Considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Joint Commissioner was not correct in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the order passed by the assessing officer in so far as the turnover of Rs. 2,39,705.92 being the purchase made from Jayachandra Traders and Dinakar Traders are concerned. Accordingly, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner stands restored. 12.. In the result the appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntly that it is the oil mill owners who are entitled to collect the tax. Since there was doubt in this matter this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib 1991 83 STC 402 1992 1 MTCR 321 held that in a situation like this penalty is not exigible under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Considering the facts in this case and the decision rendered by this Court (State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Mohammed Ibrahim Sahib 1991 83 STC 402 1992 1 MTCR 321), we hold that in the case of the assessee also, since he happens to be a decorticator who collected the tax and paid to the Government, should not be penalised under the provisions of section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Accordingly we set aside the suo motu order passed by the Joint Commissioner in levying the penalty. 3.. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the penalty orders are cancelled in all the assessment years under consideration. No costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 218 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e fact that the assessee was only a dealer and not a manufacturer of steel furniture and that it was not shown that the assessee had purchased the goods in question from outside the State, it had to be presumed that the assessee had purchased the goods for sale only in the State. In the circumstances of the case the assessee could be taken to have purchased the goods representing 50 per cent of the escaped turnover from local registered dealers and therefore to that extent the sales should be taken to be second sales. Hence the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were justified in adopting the ratio of 50 50. 13.. Considering the reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the findings given by the Appellate Tribunal in confirming the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both in the matter of quantum appeal as well as in the penalty are in order. In the result, the revisions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 217 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd regularity of the accounts are not challenged, the accounts are relevant and are prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under section 34 of the Evidence Act. To put it differently, the rejection of account books cannot be made on a pretext. If the returns would be substantiated and the figures disclosed therein are verifiable from the account books in which no defect is noted, the assessing authority is not legally empowered to reject the account version and to proceed to make assessment on best judgment in disregard of the account books and the disclosed results. The Tribunal in the instant case has found as a fact that no defects were found in the accounts of the assessee. The Tribunal was well within its limit to direct the assessment on the disclosed turnover and to set aside the finding with regard to rejection of the account books. For what has been stated above, this revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to the Full Bench by holding that the decision reported in 1992 85 STC 245 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Tube Investments of India Ltd.) has been correctly decided and we further hold that the decision reported in 1977 40 STC 310 (Mad.) Elgi Equipments (Private) Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu does not lay down the correct position of law and shall stand overruled. Even on the other question relating to the merits of the plea that the appellant had not contravened section 3(3) of the Act or the declaration in form XVII or section 45(2)(e) rendering themselves liable to penalty under section 23 of the Act, we reject the claim of the appellant as wholly untenable. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 13.. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no further or separate orders are necessary in the connected T.C.M.P. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 215 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d in holding that the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner could not be rejected on account of non-payment of 50 per cent of the total demand of tax and penalty due from the assessee. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee. 6.. In view of the aforesaid decision, the matter under consideration stands concluded. The deposit has to be in regard to balance . 7.. It is accordingly held that the Board was not justified in splitting up of the demand on account of tax and on account of penalty. The expression balance meant total balance. 8.. In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 9.. This reference is answered accordingly, but with no order as to costs. 10. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and under the seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Tribunal for information. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (10) TMI 214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etation to enable the trader to get the benefit of exemption. In our judgment, the liability to pay duty for leco is under entry 1 of the Fourth Schedule and the circular is erroneous. The consequential action taken by the authorities by service of notice dated July 22, 1991, must also be quashed. 5.. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment dated August 27, 1991, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 18383 and 18384 of 1991 as well as circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on May 21, 1991, is quashed. The assessment order dated May 25, 1991, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer for the assessment year 1989-90 is also set aside and the Commercial Tax Officer is directed to pass fresh assessment order in pursuance of this judgment. The proceedings commenced by the Commercial Tax Officer by service of notice on July 22, 1991, is also quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ appeals allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 213 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tructions to the buyer of the petitioner, that is, Kedia Vanaspathy Limited, not to pay a sum of Rs. 3,22,251 that had become payable to the petitioner for the goods sold by the petitioner to the buyer. In view of this, we are satisfied that the impugned attachments are not in accordance with and are in flagrant violation of section 17-B of the Act and are therefore bad and have to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be willing to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 5,00,000 which would cover the value of the attachments in question. We appreciate this. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to raise all the attachments questioned in this writ petition forthwith on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 within fifteen days from today, valid till the finalisation of the assessments and raising of the demands thereon. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 212 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the public. In case on hand, on proper appreciation, no such doubt is visible. 12.. We, therefore, hold that the sale of unserviceable items of stores comprising discarded assets like scrap, dyes, chemicals, broken iron hoops, obsolete machinery, coal-ash, etc., is a sale made in the course of business and is liable to tax and cannot enjoy any immunity from levy and recovery of tax under the relevant Acts. 13.. In fact, question is squarely covered by the decisions cited above and on that linch-pin, question does not now seem to be one of law stricto sensu. 14.. Ex consequenti, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 15.. The reference is disposed of accordingly, but with no orders as to costs. 16.. Let a copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar of this Court and seal of the High Court be transmitted, with reference to its reference, to the Appellate Tribunal. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (10) TMI 211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... agglomerated with natural or artificial resins or other organic binding substances in sheets, blocks, boards or the like also fall under this item. The joint boards made out of bagasse soaked in tar solution would satisfy the conditions prescribed under item 114 of the First Schedule. Since the goods sold by the assessee falls directly under item 114 of the First Schedule, it is not necessary to consider whether the goods similar to those described in the entry will also fall in that entry in view of the use of the words or the like . Thus, considering the raw material used for making the goods sold by the assessee, and on a plain reading of item 114 of First Schedule, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the goods sold by the assessee would fall under entry 114 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 210 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t very case which came up for hearing before the Division Bench and decided against the Revenue. This is what the learned Judges held in the concluding para ..........A combined reading of sections 5-B and 6-B, in our view, leads to the conclusion that concessional rates of tax provided in provisions other than section 5-B, would form basis for levy of surcharge and they would be included within the expression tax under this Act , and the concessional tax contemplated under section 5-B shall not be exigible to surcharge under section 6-B. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court has, as already stated, stressed on the non obstante clause and the intention of the Legislature. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by the Division Bench. For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is set aside. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of the appeal and the words pass such orders as the Tribunal thinks fit include all the powers (except possibly the power of enhancement) which are conferred upon the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by section 31 of the Act. 22.. In this view, when the impugned order is one passed without jurisdiction and authority in law, all the other objections raised by the respondent cannot stand in the way of granting the relief to the petitioner. Hence I pass the following order (i) The writ petition is allowed (ii) The impugned order dated March 17, 1994, passed in A.P. No. 7 of 1991 by the first respondent is quashed (iii) The case is remitted back to the first respondent and he is directed to re-hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above (iv) All the contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the first respondent in appeal and (v) No costs. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
