|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 74 Records
-
1967 (2) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plied, mainly related to the question of period of limitation. As has been observed by the Tribunal, if the 1953 Act applied, the petitioners application was in time. As has been observed by us above, even if the 1946 Act applied, the petitioners application was liable to be considered on merits and the delay in filing was liable to be condoned. Under the circumstances, we find it unnecessary to decide the second contention made by Mr. Shah that to the proceedings in the petition the 1953 or 1959 Act applied and the Tribunal s finding to the contrary is incorrect. In the result the rule is made absolute. The decision of the Tribunal dated 24th September, 1965, is set aside. The application for reference to be made to this Court filed on 20th March, 1964, is restored to the file of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will dispose of the same in accordance with law and consistently with the observations made above. Respondent No. 1 will pay costs to the petitioners. Rule made absolute.
-
1967 (2) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent order was silent about the imposition of the penalty, it must be taken that the assessing authority had applied its mind but did not think it necessary to levy a penalty, and a succeeding assessing authority would have no jurisdiction to reopen the earlier assessment order or act independently of it for purposes of levying penalty. I think there is much force in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner for in the assessment order I do not see any penalty actually levied though there is a proposal to levy such penalty. As per the decision cited above, the levy must be made in the order of assessment itself and not by the issue of an erratum. It will be seen that it is clearly admitted by the issue of the erratum that the levy of penalty has not been made in the order of assessment itself and certainly by the issue of an erratum penalty cannot be levied. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the penalty proceedings quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 91 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In these circumstances it was not enough for the petitioners to merely allege that the Government or its departments were dealers. It is essentially a question of fact whether the Government carried on business in the commodities which were purchased by the Sangh from the Government or its departments. Therefore, there is no sufficient material before us for holding that prior to the goods coming into possession of the Sangh and it selling them in turn, there was any other dealer who had rendered himself liable to sales tax, so that imposition of any sales tax from the Sangh could be regarded as the imposition of sales tax at more than a single point in the series of sales. Having considered the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of assessment passed against the petitioner-Sangh. The result is that the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 90 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Act. They cannot override any statutory provision of the Central Act. That apart, even if it be held that the matter of imposition of penalty for failing to file a return in time has been dealt with by rule 12 of the Central Rules as well as by section 17(3) of the State Act by virtue of section 9(3) of the Central Act, then the provisions of section 17(3) of the State Act being special provisions relating to imposition of penalty for failing to file returns within time, must prevail over rule 12 of the Central Rules on the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant . 6.. For these reasons, our answer to the question placed before us is that the penalty for late submission of returns in Form V appended to the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, can be imposed under section 17(3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., shall have costs of this reference. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 150. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1967 (2) TMI 89 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anchand and Govindram could be made liable for the business of the joint family when the joint family as such was not proceeded against? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment proceedings shall be deemed to be proceedings against Kishanchand and Govindram only as members of the joint family and not as partners of the business Kishanchand Govindram ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Sales Tax Authorities that the business Kishanchand Govindram is a continuation of the joint family business and not a separate business is justified in law? 7.. The Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue) is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the abovesaid questions for our decision within three months from the date this order is conveyed to the Tribunal. The petitioner shall get costs of this petition from the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 88 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Officer. If ground-nuts are not oil-seeds, as contended for, no imposition can be made under the Sales Tax Act and further, if the notification of 1954 is bad, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court, there can be no levy of sales tax on edible oil. Plainly, the matter with respect to these liabilities concerns the Jurisdiction of the sales tax authority and the petition under Article 226 is entertainable by this Court. Holding, as I do, that the impositions of the purchase tax on ground-nuts and the sales tax on edible oils are unlawful, the question of penalty does not arise and the impugned order, which has been challenged in Civil Writ No. 2562 of 1964 imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000 under section 10(6) of the Act is clearly unsustainable. In the result, both the petitions would be allowed and the impugned orders of the Assessing Authority set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to the costs of these petitions which I assess at Rs. 250. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 87 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be adjusted should both be Central tax or tax under the Central Act. It is not possible, in our opinion, to adjust the tax refundable under one Act against tax due under another Act. The fact that even the tax levied under the Central Act is ultimately intended for State purposes and may therefore get directly credited into the Consolidated Fund of the State, would make no difference, because the two taxes are distinct and different, and levied under two different statutes, one of the State Legislature and the other of Parliament. 5.. We, therefore, make an order directing that Rs. 20,936.02 found as excess paid in the order of the 1st respondent made under the Central Sales Tax Act be refunded to the petitioner and further that the amount of Mysore sales tax determined as payable under the order of the 1st respondent dated 31st March, 1966, for the period Ist April, 1961 to 31st March, 1962, be re-calculated accordingly and a fresh demand issued to him. Ordered accordingly.
-
1967 (2) TMI 86 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... over exceeds Rs. 20,000. By itself this circumstance cannot be said to result In discrimination which is necessarily unconstitutional. The only way It is said to do so is by postulating that the only objective of section 27 is prevention of evasion of tax and by suggesting that evasion is possible not merely by persons whose turnover exceeds Rs. 20,000 but also by those with lesser turnover. But it is not necessary to regard this section as subserving the only purpose of preventing evasion. It may well be regarded as an incidental provision in aid of the main purpose of the Act viz., computation of tax liability. If so, the Legislature cannot be said to have contravened Article 14 by taking into account that the necessity for issuing bills is greater and more desirable in the case of persons with a larger turnover than in the case of persons with a smaller turnover. 8.. The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 85 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnment Pleader points out that what is now described as accessories may in fact be machinery parts themselves. But that is a matter which has not been decided, and because the liability under the taxing statute Is limited to the express meaning and effect of the words used, the contention of the assessee cannot be lightly brushed aside as the Tribunal appears to have done 9.. In the result, therefore, while accepting the opinion of the Tribunal that handlooms fall within the description of machinery , and parts thereof would be liable to tax as falling within entry 20 of Schedule II to the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, we remit the matter to the original assessing authority with a direction that he may examine the petitioners contention regarding the exact nature of these items, classify them as machine parts and accessories and impose tax on the former under entry 20 of Schedule II and on the latter under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1967 (2) TMI 84 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reme Court was of the view that the contract of sale was completely carried through within the Madras area itself, where the respondents had received the price and the cotton bales were delivered to the buyers the movement outside the Madras State was by the buyers themselves after the property in them had passed to them and the sales were not sales in the course of inter-State trade. In our case too the goods were delivered in West Bengal the property in the goods had passed to the buyers In West Bengal the price and the transportation of the goods, if any, from Calcutta to Kanpur was made by or on behalf of the buyer with which the seller had nothing to do. In the premises, we hold that these transactions were not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. And the transactions were subject to payment of sales tax under the West Bengal Act, or under Article 286 of the Constitution. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs. GHOSE, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 83 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Act. So understood, he states, no difficulty or absurdity can arise, but that, on the contrary, the difficulty arises only if we attach the clause to the sale, and that it is not logical or possible to attach the clause to the sale because reference to the sale is a necessary statement of the taxable event, viz., the sale of certain goods within the State of Mysore. 10.. It appears to us that both from the point of view of the ideas furnished by section 8(4) of the Central Act and necessarily imported into section 5(2) of the State Act and from the point of view of the fixing of liability to tax on the event of a sale within the State of Mysore, the interpretation suggested on behalf of the department is a reasonable one and must be regarded as a result of a fair reading of the section and not of any particular straining of the language. 11.. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 82 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exemption that may become due to them upon facts actually found to be true by the assessing authorities, whether or not the assessees, out of ignorance or by mistake, make a claim thereto. When the mistake is so obvious and the matter is taken up on appeal, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the appellate authorities to correct the mistake. 7.. When such is the position, we do not think that the Appellate Tribunal is right in disposing of the matter as if it was a question of fact requiring the production of further evidence for investigation. 8.. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the orders of the Tribunal and of the first appellate authority are set aside. The assessment order of the original authority is also set aside to the extent it imposed tax on the turnover of Rs. 29,128.19, and the tax relatable thereto shall be refunded to the petitioner. 9.. The petitioner will have costs of this revision petition. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 81 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... odies has necessarily to proceed upon evidence or material placed before them and not otherwise. It is lack of sufficient correlation between the evidence and the decision that constitutes a source of impropriety. 6.. The Deputy Commissioner, in this case, we find, has applied his mind to very relevant circumstances and it was only after satisfying himself that the difficulties pleaded by the assessee were genuine that he has proceeded to give effect to them by reducing the estimated turnover of the assessee. When, therefore, he has proceeded upon relevant considerations, it is not, in our opinion, possible for the Commissioner to state that the Deputy Commissioner s order suffers from any impropriety attracting his powers of revision. 7.. In the result, these two appeals are allowed, the orders of the Commissioner set aside and those of the Deputy Commissioner restored. 8.. The appellant will have his costs in these appeals (one set) Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Appeals allowed.
-
1967 (2) TMI 80 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents, because the point involved is the same as in other cases and may be dealt with conveniently at one hearing. 22.. In all these four matters, the Central sales tax paid by the assessee has not been adjusted, but a separate demand made for payment of Mysore sales tax under sub-section (4) of section 5. 23.. Hence the proper order to make in each of these cases is the following and we order accordingly The assessing authority is directed to refund Central sales tax paid by the petitioner in each of these cases. He is further directed to examine the facts of these cases in the light of the law declared in this order from the point of view of whether the petitioner is entitled to receive refund of Mysore sales tax and/or examine the liability, if any, of the petitioner for payment of Mysore sales tax. To enable him to do so, the demand already made for payment of Mysore sales tax in each of these cases is quashed. 24.. No costs in any of these petitions. Ordered accordingly.
-
1967 (2) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT
CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF GOODS — INSPECTION AT RAILWAY STATION WITHIN STATE — RAILWAY STATION SPECIFIED AS PLACE OF DELIVERY — GOODS BOOKED BY RAIL TO CONSIGNEE OUTSIDE STATE — PRESUMPTION THAT SALE TOOK PLACE WITHIN STATE
-
1967 (2) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in extending the Madras Act in the manner and to the extent it did under section 2(1) of the Principal Act the Pondicherry Legislature abdicated its legislative power in favour of the Madras Legislature
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As if the Pondicherry Legislature had extended the Madras Act together with such amendments which might be made in that Act up to April 1, 1966. Since the Amendment Act was thus passed on the footing that there was in existence a valid Act, viz., the said Principal Act, it is impossible to conceive that it was or intended to be an independent legislation extending thereunder the Madras Act. The Amendment Act was and was intended to be an amendment of the Principal Act and it would be stretching the language of the Amendment Act to a breaking point to construe it as an independent legislation whereby the Madras Act was retrospectively brought into operation as from April 1, 1966. That being so, and on the view that the Principal Act was still-born, the attempt to revive that which was void ab initio was frustrated and such an Act could have no efficacy.
-
1967 (2) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sales were to be treated as sales in Bihar for the purposes of the Bihar Sales Tax Act or as sales in the course of inter- State trade and commerce for purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand. There is nothing to show that any further evidence beyond documents produced to illustrate sample sales was necessary. Nor did the learned Additional Solicitor-General suggest that this was going to be an issue of fact rather than of law. It would certainly have avoided circuity of action and proved altogether more satisfactory if the High Court had considered whether the sample transaction as illustrated by the documents, disclosed a transaction of sale outside the State of Bihar and not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. On that depended the payment of tax of the order of Rs. 1,73,00,000 and odd for two quarters alone. We are clearly of opinion that the High Court ought to have taken jurisdiction in this case at least to issue a rule nisi to see what the Assistant Commissioner had to say. The High Court could always decline to decide the case if disputed questions of fact requiring finding thereon arose, but so far as we can see, no such question was likely to arise.
-
1967 (2) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT
Where the sales tax authority is not satisfied with the returns filed by a registered dealer and issues a notice under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, before the expiry of three years from the termination of the period for furnishing returns but finalises the assessment order after three years from the aforesaid date, whether such an assessment order can be said to be time-barred and, therefore, without jurisdiction?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Since the said notice dated January 11, 1957, was served on the respondent-firm before the expiry of three years from the respective dates for furnishing the returns, the assessment proceedings must be held to have commenced from that date which was within time and thus the assessment proceedings remained pending until they were terminated by the assessment order. Though that order was finalised after the expiry of three years from the said period, it could not be attacked on the ground of its being beyond limitation and therefore without jurisdiction. The order passed by the High Court allowing the respondent's writ petition has, therefore, to be set aside.
-
1967 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT
Whether charcoal is covered under entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and is taxable at the rate of 2 per cent. or will be taxable at the rate of 4 per cent. under entry 1 of Part VI of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We agree with the meaning of the word "coal" given by the High Court and hold that charcoal would be taxable at the rate of 2 per cent. only.
-
1967 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sales of sleepers (for railways) made by the non-applicant (Bengal Timber Trading Co. Ltd.) under the agreement with the President of India came under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution read with the Explanation thereto and therefore were exempt from the imposition of tax under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the result, it must be held that the sales in these cases were covered by the Explanation to Article 286(1) and as such not taxable by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
|
