|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 30 of 30 Records
-
1957 (11) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erson engaged in buying, selling or supplying or distributing goods within the meaning of the definition of a dealer, that is, an agriculturist when selling the produce from his land can hardly be said to be a dealer. On the other hand, the income from the first sale of the produce from his lands would be agricultural income, as opposed to business income, liable to be taxed in exercise of the legislative power conferred by item 46 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, if the agriculturist sellers of the produce cannot be brought within the net of taxation, it is obvious that the purchaser is clearly intended to be reached when the legislature definitely indicated that it is at the point of first purchase in the State that the tax is exigible. We, therefore, hold it so. For the several reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the applications are not tenable and we accordingly dismiss them with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 each. Applications dismissed.
-
1957 (11) TMI 16 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is so, the levy of tax in regard to such sales is rendered lawful by reason of the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, which has been made by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to clause (2) of Article 286 of the Constitution. Therefore, this contention also has to fail. For all the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that these appeals should be allowed. Therefore, we allow these appeals and set aside the order of acquittal passed in each of these three cases and we sentence the accused in each of these cases to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. Further, under section 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, we specify (1) a sum of Rs. 14,807-9-0 as the tax due from the accused in C.C. No. 857 of 1952-53 (2) a sum of Rs. 19,743-6-9 as the tax due from the accused in C.C. No. 1342 of 1951-52 and (3) a sum of Rs. 13,494-1-3 as the tax due from the accused in C.C. No. 1410 of 1951-52. Appeals allowed.
-
1957 (11) TMI 15 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is required to allow all facilities to the Rationing and Food Controllers staff to enter the mill premises (clause 7) (3) that it is required to use bags marked and supplied by Government and is unable to make any profit on the sale of bags (clause 8) (4) that if Government increases the price of gunny bags the petitioner is under an obligation to make a corresponding increase in the price of bags. The question whether the petitioner is or is not a dealer has not been referred to us and it is not within the competence of this Court to raise or decide this question (Kanga on Income-tax, page 93). For these reasons I would answer the questions which have been referred to us as follows (1) It is a sale. (2) Price of gunny bags should be included in the taxable turnover. (3) It is not an adverse order. Let appropriate answers be returned to the reference. The petitioner will pay costs to Government which we assess at Rs. 200. DULAT, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1957 (11) TMI 14 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (1). 13.. Thus, according to my discussions above, the sale to the mills outside the State of Orissa had nothing to do with the sale by the dealer to Messrs Paluram Dhandhania. Further, the sale having been completed at Bargarh, it cannot be held that it had itself occasioned the export and thus assumed a complexion of inter-State trade at its inception. Besides, the sale to outsiders was the result of a separate contract with the outsider millers, and, accordingly, it cannot be said that the sale by the dealer to Messrs Paluram Dhandhania and Co., was in the course of inter-State trade. Thus, the contention of Mr. Mohanty is bound to fail, and the order passed by the Board of Revenue stands unassailed. 14.. In the result, we answer the question in the negative against the contentions of the petitioner and dismiss this application with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100. NARASIMHAM, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1957 (11) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e goods as were not accepted by those who had bought these goods from the buyer for the petitioner. The learned counsel relied on the observations at page 452 in Heilbutt v. Hickson (1872) Common Pleas 438. It may not be necessary to deal at any length with the facts of that case, which were totally different from what we have had to consider in these cases. In our opinion the Tribunal was right in holding that the turnover of the sales included in items 3 to 8 of what we have listed above was liable to be taxed. The revision is allowed in part. As we have already directed, the turnover of the sales in favour of Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Rs. 1,80,925-2-10), and the sales in favour of the Madras Hides and Skins Exporters Ltd. (Rs. 1,19,846-10-2) will be deducted from the taxable turnover and the assessment will be accordingly revised. The rest of the claim of the petitioner fails. As neither side has wholly succeeded before us, there will be no order as to costs. accordingly.
-
1957 (11) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ases of reckless exercise of authority when there is a total want of bona fides. If the argument of the learned Government Pleader were right, it would be open to the officers of the Sales Tax Department arbitrarily to take away the property of A to realise arrears of sales tax due from B , and A cannot have the protection of the Courts. I enquired of the learned Government Pleader whether in this particular case the second defendant had acted under the advice of the local Government Pleader and I was told that he had not. The evidence of D.W. I which the learned Government Pleader placed before me suggests that the plaintiff was angry and protested angrily. In effect, he dared the second defendant to attach his property and the second defendant dared. He must have been perfectly aware that he had no authority to do what he did. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to hold that section 17 applies to the facts of this case. The second appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1957 (11) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ngs in the normal course cannot be characterised as penal or punitive. The finding of the Magistrate is not binding on the Tribunal and we hold that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the plea of acquittal by the Criminal Court. The next question is whether the assessment can be sustained on merits. This is no doubt a border case. While the taxable limit has been fixed by section 3(3) of the Sales Tax Act at Rs. 10,000 the estimate of which the department has made is at Rs. 12,452-6-1 for 1952-53 and Rs. 10,353-9-6 for 1953-54. As the quantum of turnover ordinarily is a question of fact, we fell disinclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three authorities. In fact, no attempt was made to prove before us by a reference to the documents filed in the case that there were no materials which could sustain the estimate. We see, therefore, no grounds to interfere. The revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1957 (11) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ank of India and Others 60 C.W.N. 602., it is quite plain that record of facts found by an administrative agency such as the Sales Tax Authorities with special and express provisions made for finding of facts and investigation and enquiry should not be lightly interfered with by constitutional writs. It has been held repeatedly that these proceedings in certiorari or prohibition under constitutional writs in their nature are not appellate or factfinding but only supervisory. Rightly or wrongly, the Taxing Officer has given his reasons why he has rejected the declarations on the basis of which the petitioner claimed exemptions. I do not find his reasons either unnatural or prima facie bad. Speaking for myself I find the reasons cogent, satisfactory and convincing. I am not prepared to interfere with his findings of facts on the records of the present case. I, therefore, dismiss this application and discharge the rule. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1957 (11) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Court – Jurisdiction of, Circumstances in which a company may be wound up and Principles for interpretation of statutes
-
1957 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent is liable for income-tax, which has been paid by the Hapur firm on the transactions, which were entered into by the appellant with the Hapur firm for and on behalf of the respondent ?
Held that:- In our opinion the Judicial Committee of Ijlas-i-khas was in error in holding that before fixing the liability of a contributory to tax paid by an agent in British India for and on behalf of the non-resident contributory, his liability to pay tax on his "entire income", really total world income, had to be established. Therefore the finding of the High Court that the liquidator cannot claim from the respondent the amount of tax paid by the Hapur firm on transactions entered into by the appellant for and on behalf of the respondent unless it was shown that his total world income was taxable is unsustainable. As between the parties the tax paid by the agent had to be taken into account irrespective of the ultimate result of the assessment on the non-resident.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Pepsu High Court set aside and the order of the learned liquidation judge restored
|
