|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 243 Records
-
1986 (2) TMI 329 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llieries in Bihar at the nearest railhead which was also in Bihar. Coal was sent by the collieries to the nearest railhead by railway on f.o.r. basis and at the railhead the coal was inspected by the agent of the assessees and taken delivery of. Thus the actual delivery of the goods in question was taken in Bihar outside the then State of Bombay, and hence the explanation to article 286(1) which had been incorporated also in section 46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, did not operate so as to result in the sale being deemed to be a sale within the then State of Bombay. As the property in the goods passed in Bihar, in the absence of any circumstances showing an intention to the contrary, the sale must be held to have taken place in Bihar. 5.. In the result the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 328 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the order of remand neither gives any direction nor any observation regarding the taxability of mahuwa flowers with effect from 7th September, 1981, to 31st March, 1982. Hence, it could not be a subject-matter of a show cause notice to the petitioner for the assessment year in question. It is thus apparent from the above that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner in the present case on the two grounds taken in the notice dated 30th April, 1985, annexure 5 to the writ petition. Since the show cause notice was without jurisdiction any proceedings to be commenced upon such a notice would also be illegal and abuse of the process of law. For the above reasons the writ petition must succeed and is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 30th April, 1985, is quashed. The Sales Tax Officer is directed to proceed with the case before him upon remand in accordance with law. Costs will be easy in this case. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 327 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eme Court ruled down that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. We have already referred to a later case of Ram and Shyam Company AIR 1985 SC 1147 in which the Honourable Supreme Court has held that an illegal or invalid order can be quashed under article 226 of the Constitution and that cannot be rejected merely on the ground of alternative remedy. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the notices dated 5th September, 1985, and 29th August, 1985, which are annexures 3 and 6 respectively, are quashed and the respondent No. 2 is directed not to cancel the recognition certificate (annexure 2) and allow the benefit of tax exemption to the petitioner on purchase of raw materials required for the manufacture of the waterproof packing rolls, a sample of which is included in the file. The parties will, however, bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 326 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er) that liability to pay penal interest in such circumstances accrues only where there is a failure to pay the amount of tax demanded as per the notice of demand issued in accordance with sub-rule (3) of rule 18 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules and form No. 14. As no notice of demand has been issued as required, the levy of penal interest by the assessing authority on the petitioner and the notice of demand for penal interest under exhibit P3 and the order in revision filed by him exhibit P4 are hereby quashed. We say penal interest has been levied without any notice of demand as that is the case of the petitioner, which is further supported by the fact that there is no reference to the notice of demand in the impugned order exhibit P3. The O.P. is accordingly allowed and the authorities are free to take appropriate steps in the light of the law declared by us in O.P. No. 7804 of 1984-M joy Varghese v. State of Kerala 1986 62 STC 227 (Ker) . No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 325 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... und unless the Commissioner has given notice in writing to the dealer of his intention so to do and has allowed the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case it is an admitted position that no notice in writing was given to the petitioner-dealer before passing the order (annexure G) seeking to rectify the order (annexure E). The requirement of notice to the dealer in writing being a condition precedent for exercise of power of rectification by respondent No. 1, and that mandatory requirement having not been complied with in the instant case, the order of respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 6.. In view of the discussion aforesaid, this petition is allowed with costs. The order of rectification dated 14th November, 1983, passed by respondent No. 1 (annexure G) is hereby quashed. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 324 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aper within the meaning of clause 3 of the notification, but its product, namely, waterproof packing rolls and sheets are different from paper and, therefore, clause 3 of the notification was not attracted. So, our earlier decision dated 6th February, 1986 (Mahabir Industries v. State of U.P. 1987 65 STC 251) is squarely applicable to the instant case. For the sake of brevity and to avoid unproductive exercise, we follow the same reasons to decide this petition. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the show cause notice dated 12th August, 1985 (annexure 3 to the writ petition), is quashed and the respondent No. 2 is directed not to cancel the recognition certificate (annexure 2 to the writ petition) and to allow the benefit of tax exemption to the petitioner on purchases of raw materials required for the manufacture of waterproof packing rolls or sheets, a sample of which is included in the file. The parties will, however, bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 323 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nment would take appropriate steps to exempt the units of the petitioners from levy of octroi on the plant and machineries brought for establishment of the units of the petitioners and raw materials used therein for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production of the respective units, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. This shall be done within a period of 3 months hence. The petitioners are also entitled to be exempted from levy of sales tax in respect of goods described in item 26-A quoted above used in their flour mills for a period of 5 years from the date of certification of their units in the manner and to the extent stated in the Industrial Policy Resolution 1979-83. An appropriate writ of mandamus shall issue to the opposite parties. The writ applications succeed to the extent indicated above. Parties are to bear their respective costs. R.C. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Writ applications partly allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 322 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 36 for the delay after 11th May, 1973, could be levied only at the old rates prevailing prior to that date and not at the new rates which came into force on that date? 2.. It is agreed between the counsel that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi reported in 1987 65 STC 416 1986 157 ITR 330, the said question will have to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. 3.. The question is answered accordingly. No order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 321 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... types of pipes including polythene, rubber, cement, canvas and aluminium and that the P.V.C. pipes would be governed by entry No. 56(ii). 5.. The Tribunal, however, did not give any finding on the material question as to whether P.V.C. pipes were included within the meaning of the expression polythene tubings covered by the notification dated 7th April, 1967, as modified by notification dated 3rd July, 1971, referred to above. Therefore, in the absence of a finding by the Tribunal on this material question, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that P.V.C. pipes would not be covered under Notification No. 1061-537-V-ST dated 7th April, 1967, as modified by Notification No. 1432-138-V-ST dated 3rd July, 1971, and were assessable to tax under entry No. 56(ii) of Part II of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 6.. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 320 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... umatic tyre wheels and accessories and attachment and spare parts thereof. A perusal of the said entry indicates that wheels and accessories which are parts of animal driven vehicles, are exempt under section 4 of the Act vide notification dated 14th November, 1980. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Tribunal and heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax. In view of the wordings of entry No. 30 I am of the opinion that the double plated rims manufactured by the assessee should have been exempted under section 4 of the Act. In the result the revision succeeds in part and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to determine the turnover of double plated rims of the assessee and exempt it from payment of tax. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition partly allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 319 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e question of payment of admitted tax for these two years (did) not arise . From the earlier portion of his order, it appears, that one of the contentions of the firm was that the Assistant Commissioner had erred in law in holding that the admitted amount of tax having not been paid he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals . Thus, there can be no doubt that the point was canvassed before the Deputy Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner was, therefore, wholly mistaken in thinking that this plea was never taken up at the appellate or first revisional stage . It is on the basis of this mistaken statement made by the Financial Commissioner that question No. 2 has been formulated. Since, on the facts of this case, that question does not arise we decline to answer the same. These references are answered accordingly. The Commissioner of Sales Tax will have the costs of these references. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 in each case. J.D. JAIN, J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1986 (2) TMI 318 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ces, the petitioner makes himself liable to be prosecuted for making false statement on oath, which is, in law, receivable as evidence. 21.. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the proprietor of the petitioner-firm is the author of making false statements on oath in the petition and his statements, as stated, are wholly false and inspired by vexatious motive. Therefore, in such a case deterrent action is warranted. However, we think that instead of directing proprietor Babulal Agarwal s prosecution, awarding of exemplary cost which would be an eye-opener to others, would meet the ends of justice. 22. From the discussion aforesaid this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. We further direct that apart from bearing ordinary costs, the petitioner shall pay exemplary cost Rs. 1,000 (one thousand) which shall be payable to the department. Counsel s fee Rs. 750 if certified. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecting the books of account. The other factor which has been taken into account is that there was shortage in the stocks. That too according to the assessee is not relevant ground for rejecting the books of account with which I also agree. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, on the contrary stated that apart from the above two factors the other factor which weighed with the Tribunal was that the cash box was not opened for counting by the assessee at the time of survey. In my opinion that by itself could not be a sufficient ground for rejecting the books of account. Having heard the counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to pass suitable order under section 11(8) of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 316 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reasons as to why the explanation offered by the applicant for condoning the delay was not accepted. Apart from the said fact the other fact which is also relevant in the instant case is that the applicant was merely a transporter and the goods had already been released in favour of the consignee. Keeping in view of the totality and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be sustained. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to send the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) for deciding the appeal of the applicant afresh on merits. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. The certified copy of the judgment may be supplied to the counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within 48 hours. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 315 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udicial) to have rectified his order dated 3rd February, 1981. The Revenue has also tried to canvass before me that since the Revenue had challenged only estimation part of the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) before the Tribunal, the theory of merger could not be applied on that score. This contention is also wholly fallacious inasmuch as under section 10(5) of the Act the Tribunal has been empowered by the legislature even to enhance the turnover fixed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and if the Revenue was aggrieved by non-imposition of surcharge, the same could have been levied by the Tribunal which would have amounted to enhancement of the tax. In view of the aforesaid discussions the order passed by the Tribunal dated 29th October, 1985, deserves to be set aside. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 29th October, 1985, passed by the Tribunal is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 314 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the petitioner. I am not expressing any final opinion about any question of fact and law. But, in my view, in the peculiar facts of the case, the penalty order must be set aside. The respondents are directed to go into those questions afresh and decide the questions in accordance with law. The respondents will have liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The penalty order dated 25th November, 1984 is set aside with a direction upon respondent No. 2, the Commercial Tax Officer, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. I am also directing respondent No. 2 to consider the question of granting retrospective amendment of the registration certificate afresh in accordance with law in view of the facts stated hereinabove within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is thus disposed of without costs. I am making it clear that the respondents will be at liberty to pass any order as they think fit. Order accordingly.
-
1986 (2) TMI 313 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f from the account stocks of the tins on the probable non-return of the tins by the customers constitutes sale price ? 2.. It is agreed between the respective counsel that the question referred must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 1983 53 STC 179. 3.. The question is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (2) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ers for the period up to 15th July, 1962, are bad in law? In view of our judgment reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Khimji Velji and Co. 1985 58 STC 95, question No. (2) must be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. As pointed out in that judgment, in view of question No. (2) being answered as aforesaid, it is not necessary to answer question No. (1) and we decline to answer this question. The questions are answered as aforesaid. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (2) TMI 311 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cement mixture produced by the assessee by mixing sand with cement and metal in water cannot be regarded as a commercial commodity at all, because it is a commodity which has to be used as soon as it is manufactured and is not a commercial article capable of being sold or normally sold in the market. It is a commodity produced by a builder for his immediate use and by the very nature of the product, it is not capable of being generally sold in the market. This cement mixture produced cannot be regarded as a commercial commodity, and hence the assessee cannot be regarded as having carried on the activity of manufacture in respect of the sand which goes into the making of the cement mixture. 8.. In the result, question No. (1) referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and the question No. (2) must be answered in the negative. Both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. 9.. The revenue to pay to the assessee the costs of these two references in one set.
-
1986 (2) TMI 310 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ircumstances do not exist or if the conditions are not performed, then the sales of goods cannot be exempted from tax. Where the exemption from taxation is conferred by conditions or in certain circumstances, there is no exemption from tax generally within the meaning of section 8(2A) of the Central Act. The goods should be totally exempt from tax under the State Act before similar exemption from the levy of Central sales tax can become available. Applying the ratio as enunciated above to the case of the petitioner it is clear that there is no condition imposed upon the petitioner the non-performance or non-existence of which would render the exemption inapplicable, because the condition here was only related to the fixation of a period of exemption, the sale being entirely without any condition. 7.. In the result, the claim of the State based on annexures 1, 2 and 4 does not have the sanction of law and they are, accordingly, quashed. The application is allowed, with costs.
........
|
