|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 31 of 31 Records
-
1955 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... valid" could not be given their full effect. As there are no such saving clauses in express or implied terms, it must be held that the amendment was clearly intended by the legislature to apply to all cases of election of president or vicepresident, whether or not the matter had been taken to court. it is the duty of courts to give full effect to the intentions of the legislature as expressed in a statute. That being so, it must be held that the amending Act had the effect of curing any illegality or irregularity in the elections in question with reference to the provisions of section 19 of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid it must be held that the meeting of the 3rd August 1954 had been validly held and that there is no illegality in the election of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as president and vice-president respectively. We accordingly affirm the orders of the High Court, though not for the same reasons. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1955 (2) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsaction. That again, in our opinion, is a wrong approach to section 10(2)(xv). In order to be satisfied that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business, the Court must look at the circumstances under which that expenditure was incurred, and if the Court is satisfied that the circumstances were such as to disentitle the assessee to claim the deduction under section 10(2)(xv) it must do so. It would be impossible to accept the position that the Court must so detach itself as only to remember that the assessee paid a certain amount and got back the goods, forgetting and overlooking the fact that that action was due to his earlier action in committing a breach of the law. Therefore, in our opinion, on the facts of this case it is clear that the amount claimed by the assessee cannot be a permissible expenditure under section 10(2)(xv). We therefore answer the question submitted to us in the negative. Assessee to pay the costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... option to the Income authorities either to assess the unregistered firm and then proceed to assess each individual partner of that firm or not to assess the unregistered firm at all but to assess each individual partner and his share of the profits in the firm for his assessment. But, as we have said before, the choice must be carefully exercised and the department must always remember that in exercising the choice it is not in any way prejudicing the assessee or depriving him to the right or adding to the burden of taxation which he has to pay. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessment made in the case is not illegal. The question put to us is not with reference to any provision of the Act but is widely framed whether the assessment is legal or not, and as we do not find any illegality in the assessment arising out of any provision of the Act we must declare the assessment to be legal and answer the question submitted to us in the affirmative. The assessee to pay the costs.
-
1955 (2) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pay sales tax, even though rule 16(5) has been held to be ultra vires, does not really arise for determination in these proceedings. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that rule 15, which provided for provisional assessment on a monthly basis in the case of a licensed tanner was also ultra vires, and therefore there was no machinery at all to enforce the liability which section 3(1) read with section 5 of the Act imposed upon him. Yet another contention was that, since the single point taxation could no longer be confined only to licensed dealer after rule 16(5) had been held to be ultra vires, the basis of licensing was non-existent, and that no licence fee should have been collected from him. We have merely set out the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We propose to express no opinion on the soundness or otherwise of any of these contentions. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1955 (2) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s must have been entered in his independent turnover as spoken to in his re-examination. There is, therefore, no substance in this conten- tion as well. The learned Government Pleader relied on the recent decision of the Chief justice in Hiranand Ramsook Firm v. Province of Madras(1). In the particular case it was not disputed that the plaintiff did not maintain separate accounts in respect of each class of articles specified in the section. Therefore, the Chief justice rightly held that the terms of rule 12 were not complied with and that a commission agent was not (1) 1954 5 S.T.C. 361 (1954) 2 M.L.J. (Andhra) 37. entitled to claim exemption. I agree with the observations of the learned Chief justice. But on the facts of this case, I find that there has been no violation and that the commission agent was rightly entitled to the refund of the sales tax wrongly collected from him. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave. Appeal dismissed.
-
1955 (2) TMI 6 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cidence of the tax from the seller to the purchaser was certainly not within the competence of the State Government under its rule-making powers. The tax could only be demanded from a seller under the scheme of the Act and not from a purchaser, and no rule can be made making liable the purchaser instead of the seller, whatever the declaration of the purchaser. 8.. In view of this we are of opinion that the rule is ultra vires the State Government and a writ of mandamus should go prohibiting the respondents from utilizing the rule to the detriment of the petitioner. We note, however, that the Legislature perhaps viewed the matter in the same light, because rule 20A with slight modifications has now been enacted as a part of the Act. 9.. The petition is allowed, a writ of mandamus absolute shall issue, and the petitioner shall be allowed his costs of the present petition. Counsel s fee Rs. 50. The petitioner shall be refunded the security deposit made by him. Petition allowed.
-
1955 (2) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this term is not free from doubt, the benefit of it might be given to the assessee. It is no doubt true that in interpreting the fiscal enactment if there is any doubt or ambiguity in the expression of the legislative intent the benefit of such doubt should go to the subject, but it is equally true that when exemption from taxation or deduction is claimed they should not be extended beyond the express requirements of the language of the provision. It is for the person claiming a benefit under a provision granting exemption to establish the conditions which attract the applicability of such exemp- tion. In this case as remarked by us, it would be straining the language of the word oil and enlarging the definition if we should uphold the plea of the petitioner. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke rule 18(2) and the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is correct. In the result the petition is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1955 (2) TMI 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ke assessment upon the firm to the best of its judgment. We are, therefore, satisfied that the assessee was not given a notice as contemplated by section 13(5) of the Act. In our opinion, the giving of a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 13(5) is a mandatory statutory provision and unless such reason- able opportunity is given, the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty upon the assessee. In other words, the condition as to reasonable notice imposed under section 13(5) is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to impose the penalty upon the assessee. It follows that in the circumstances of this case the imposi- tion of penalty upon the assessee under section 13(5) is not legally valid. For these reasons we answer the question referred to the High Court in favour of the assessee and against the State of Bihar. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference hearing fee Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (2) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hereunder, apart from the two express conditions specified in the licence. The vesting of a power in the authority to cancel the licence under rule 8 and the failure to exercise that power could not absolve the licensee from conducting himself in the carrying on of the business in accordance with the terms of the licence, including the observance of the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. Rule 8 relating to cancellation of licence is an independent enabling provision the exer- cise or non-exercise of the power of cancellation having nothing to do with the conditions under which the licensee could claim exemption under section 5. The judgments of the lower court are in my view the result of a misapprehension and consequent confusion about the scope of rule 8. I am surprised that the learned District Judge should have failed to examine the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in its proper perspective and should have simply endorsed it by assum- ing its correctness. Appeals allowed.
-
1955 (2) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ehalf a Court has no jurisdiction to prevent him from making such an appro- priation. In Yacoob Juma Khan v. Emperor(1), a case cited by the learned Sessions Judge, it was held as follows Where an accused, who is convicted under one section to a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to three months imprisonment and also under two other sections to a fine of Rs. 15 or in default to one month s im- prisonment for each offence, pays into Court Rs. 30 and thus impliedly requests that the payment should be appropriated to the two smaller offences it should be so appropriated. The same view appears to have been taken by Somasundaram, J., in Sukumaran v. The Special Commercial Tax Officer, Crl. R.C. No. 787 of 1954, on the file of this Court. (1) (1931) A.I.R. 1931 Sind 73. In the result, the reference made by the learned Sessions judge is accepted and the order of the Magistrate set aside. The money paid by the accused will be appropriated in the manner desired by him. Reference accepted.
-
1955 (2) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Summons to produce documents ... ... ... ... ..... ffered to give inspection at any time if required. I do not see how this is unreasonable or unjust. If the books have to be looked into, I do not see why the authorities cannot retain them pending the investigation. If, of course, they retain them after the investigation is over, or for an unconscionable time, that will be the time to interfere. 6.On these facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the summons complained of is perfectly in order, and that the respondents were competent to issue it, and that the petitioner company and its officers are bound in law to comply with the said summons. The application consequently fails. The Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. Inasmuch as the application involves the interpretation of the Rules upon which there is no authoritative decision, I make no order as to costs. 7.As the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal against this order the ad interim injunction will continue for a fortnight from date, as prayed for.
|
