|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 317 Records
-
1987 (3) TMI 508 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d and dealt with as contemplated by section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioner or other rice millers of Yanam from approaching the Government for evolving an arrangement which is both effective and convenient to both parties concerned. We are sure that if the petitioner so approaches, the Government/Commissioner, Sales Tax, will consider the said request and explore whether it is possible to evolve an effective and convenient arrangement, so that the rice millers are relieved of the necessity of challenging each and every collection and, at the same time, the Government does not lose the revenue due under law. At the request of the counsel for the petitioner it is directed that the respondents shall sell the paddy seized, retain the amount of tax payable, and refund the balance to the petitioner. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 507 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unto Caesar what is Caesar s. We do not see any justification for characterising a provision like section 23A as one aimed at validating an illegal levy. The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in upholding the validity of section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, squarely applies for upholding section 11 of the 1986 Act in the present case. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, fully covers the stand taken by the learned Advocate-General and there is no difficulty in holding that section 11 of the 1986 Act is constitutionally valid and is not open to attack on the ground that it seeks to validate the retention of cess/ fee recovered/recoverable under the 1983 Act. No other point has been urged before us. In the result, all these thirty-nine writ petitions are dismissed and it is held that the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986, is constitutionally valid. There is no order as to costs. D.S. TEWATIA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 506 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e notifications issued as mentioned above under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Consequently, in my opinion, for the same reasons as mentioned in relation to the liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal levying Central sales tax as unclassified item also suffers from a manifest error of law and is hereby set aside. It is held that the item double plated rims is liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act not as unclassified item but under the head agricultural implements for the assessment year 1976-77 in dispute. In the result, both the revisions succeed and are allowed with one set of costs. It is held that both for the purposes of liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, the item double plated rims is not to be taxed as unclassified item but is liable to tax under both the aforesaid Sales Tax Acts as agricultural implements as per observations made above. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 505 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... out of such paddy. The contention is that while deleting the said entry and substituting the present entry in column (2), only the words at the point of last purchase in the State were deleted but not the proviso thereto. The contention, therefore, is that the proviso still continues to operate. We have seen the amending Act, and we see absolutely no substance in the said contention. The amending Act deletes the entry in column (2) altogether and substitutes a new entry. There is no room for contending that only a part of the entry was deleted leaving the remaining part, i.e., the proviso, in place. Hence no argument can be built up on the basis of the said deleted proviso. We may note that in these cases we are concerned with the assessment years subsequent to the amendment of the said entry. For the above reasons, the tax revision cases fail and are, accordingly, dismissed but, in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fees Rs. 1,000 consolidated. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 504 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s allowed in the petitioner s income-tax assessment for the year 1983-84 will be offered for assessment under section 41 of the Income-tax Act as liability ceasing pursuant to the grant of exemption by the Commercial Tax Department. On the filing of such affidavit by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 is directed to revise the assessment already made by exempting the relevant sales during the period 1st April, 1982 to 2nd February, 1983. The petitioner s liability to sales tax for the assessment year 1982-83 may be revised on the aforementioned basis. 9.. A copy of this order shall be endorsed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P., Hyderabad, who will communicate the same to the concerned Income-tax Officer for the purpose of ensuring the assessment of the sum under section 41 of the Income-tax Act in the relevant assessment. 10.. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (3) TMI 503 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents as mentioned in the application would remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal but the respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the said cases in the manner indicated hereinbefore. (c) The operation of the impugned order of the learned trial Judge would remain stayed to the extent indicated above. (d) Hearing of the appeal is expedited. Settling of index being dispensed with the paper books are directed to be filed within 8 weeks from today. Service of notice of appeal on appearing respondents is waived by Mr. Bose. Liberty is given to mention the appeal for early hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the new application for registration filed by the petitioners on 9th July, 1986 be disposed of with reasonable expedition. Any step taken in pursuance of this order will be subject to the result of the appeal and further orders to be passed therein. There will be no order as to costs. D.K. BASU, J.-I agree. Order accordingly.
-
1987 (3) TMI 502 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Supreme Court, the learned judge, who decided that case, was of the opinion that the reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the Act cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion. In a recent judgment in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Pradeshik Co-operative Federation Ltd. 1987 UPTC 127, I have also taken a view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal, that the proceedings under section 21 were taken as a result of change of opinion, is a finding of fact. In this view of the matter also and having regard to the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the proceedings for reassessment taken by the Sales Tax Officer were invalid. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Thus all the submissions made by the Standing Counsel lack substance and are hereby rejected. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 501 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 981 UPTC 70 and in other cases, this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.L. Malhotra 1976 37 STC 319 1976 UPTC 282 took the view that the items enumerated in clause (iv) of unamended section 14 were exhaustive and not illustrative. The decision of the Tribunal runs counter to the decision of this Court and the decision of the Supreme Court as pointed out above. I, therefore, hold that steel pipes were not covered by clause (iv) of the unamended section 14, but they are specifically included in clause (xi) of the amended section 14. Therefore, the assessee was liable to pay tax not at the rate of 3 per cent but at the rate of 6 per cent on the turnover of the steel pipes. In the result, the revision is allowed, the Tribunal s order dated 14th March, 1986 is set aside and the order of the assessing authority is restored. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal to pass an order under section 11(8) of the Act accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 500 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy AIR 1978 SC 215, in particular paragraph 36. There, the Supreme Court observed that reading down of some provisions of law is permissible. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Supreme Court found it necessary to do so because, otherwise, the Act under review was liable to be declared unconstitutional. But that is not the situation here. The constitutional validity of the Act has not been challenged. Morever, I fail to see how the Act becomes unconstitutional if in this case plain meaning is given to the words of the statute. It is laid down that if a dealer s aggregate gross turnover exceeds a certain limit, he will have to pay an additional tax designated turnover tax . I fail to see how this can be called unconstitutional. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition must fail and is dismissed. The interim order is vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 499 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... those which are described as meant for being used in transistor-radios/radios) are exigible to tax under entry 38 of the First Schedule to the A.P.G.S.T. Act till the date of coming into force of entry 152. From the date of coming into force of entry 152, all dry cells, for whatever purpose they are used, and hitherto falling under both entry 38 as well as entry 3, will be exigible to tax under entry 152 only. The tax revision case is allowed to the extent, and in terms indicated above. The departmental authorities shall take appropriate consequential action and pass orders accordingly, whatever called for. The excess collections, if any, made from the petitioner shall be adjusted against the tax due from it for future period. If, in any case, the department finds that the petitioner has collected tax at a rate higher than what is permissible in law, according to this judgment, it is open to the department to take such action as is open to it in law. Petition Partly allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 498 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d order of remand, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to answer questions (a) and (b) at this stage inasmuch as the answer given by us may ultimately turn out to be only of academic interest in the event of the matter being decided in favour of the assessee in pursuance of the order of remand. 3.. As regards question (c), we are of the opinion that having accepted the photostat copy of the original bill, it was open to the Board of Revenue either to decide the matter itself in second appeal after scrutinising the original bill or the question being one of fact, remand it to the authority below. 4.. In the result, questions (a) and (b) are returned without any answer on the ground that they are premature at this stage. Our answer to question (c) is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, remand of the case was necessary and warranted. This question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1987 (3) TMI 497 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nch of the Board, a special appeal was preferred to a Division Bench of the Board which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18th November, 1982. Admittedly, the impugned order merely has the effect of affirming the Single Bench s order of the Board, remanding the case to the assessing authority for the purpose already indicated. It is only after the assessing authority has decided the matter afresh that the question of going into the correctness of the same can arise. It appears that the Board has not decided any question of law, the correctness of which is required to be examined in this revision, since the impugned order is merely one of remand. There is, therefore, no occasion to interfere in this revision. I may, however, observe that the points raised in this revision, can be gone into, if the need arise, after fresh decision of the assessing authority in the proceeding arising out of the same. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 496 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld have withheld the issue of the declaration forms in accordance with the provisions of rule 27AA(2)(a)(i) of the said Rules on the ground that there was no bona fide use of such declaration forms previously issued to the dealer concerned. In my view the Commercial Tax Officer s approach in withholding the declaration forms was right but the ground of withholding of such declaration forms as disclosed was not correct. When such declaration forms could have been withheld on a different and valid ground, the discretionary power to entertain writ application by the writ court in such circumstances, in my view, should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner who was alleged to have not made bona fide use of the declaration forms under the law and caused loss to the Revenue. Accordingly this writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking. Writ application dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 495 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... receipted challans showing payment of tax. For the reasons above, the appeal succeeds. We set aside the order dated the 13th March, 1987, of the first court which is under appeal. The application of the appellant is allowed. The impugned order of the respondent No. 1 dated the 8th January, 1987, is quashed and directed to be set aside. We, however, make it clear that we have not adjudicated on the question whether the appellant is liable to pay sales tax on the sale of the parts of the motor vehicles and it would be open to the commercial tax authorities concerned to assess the appellant to sales tax in accordance with law. The Commercial Tax Officer is directed to issue the declaration forms applied for by the appellant if the said application is otherwise in accordance with law. All parties and the Commercial Tax Officer to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 494 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax Officer. The provision applies, whether the generator is required as the exclusive source of supply of electricity or as a subsidiary one. There is nothing in the provision excluding its applicability to generator, if the same was required as a stand-by measure. In our opinion, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the application. The orders, therefore, are invalid and we accordingly quash annexures-5 and 5/1 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Circle, Balasore (opposite party No. 2) as also the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (opposite party No. 3) as per annexures-6 and 6/1. Let a mandamus issue to opposite party No. 2 directing amendment of the certificates of registration of petitioner No. 2 by inclusion of items (1) to (3) aforesaid. 8.. In the result, the writ application is allowed. But, in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. S.C. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 493 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appellate authority or before the Tribunal, about payment of tax by the purchasing registered dealer and the only argument advanced was that notwithstanding such a payment by the purchasing registered dealer, the liability for payment of tax, according to the notification, by the assessee survives in addition. In other words, payment of tax for the same sale transaction by the purchasing registered dealer was never in controversy before the appellate authority or the Tribunal and the only question was of the additional liability of the assessee, after tax had been paid by the purchasing registered dealer, for the same sale transactions. Obviously, the argument advanced now by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, contrary to it and for that reason, it cannot be accepted. There is no infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no ground to interfere in this revision. It is dismissed. Since no one has appeared to oppose, no costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the State. I do not see any legal error in the order of the Tribunal. When the assessing officer initiated proceedings under section 21, it was his duty to show that the assessee made purchases of utensils from outside the State and the turnover of the utensils purchased escaped the assessment. The assessing officer having not made any enquiry from the persons whose names and addresses were furnished by the assessee, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the assessing officer was wrong in drawing inference that the utensils in respect of which transactions were entered in the diary seized at the time of survey, had been purchased from outside the State. The assessee having furnished the names and addresses of some of the sellers and no enquiry having been made from them, I do not see any justification in rejecting the version of the assessee that the purchases were locally made. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 491 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sures that the customer cannot on his own operate the locker. Therefore this is also not a case whose consideration has been received or transfer of the rights to use the locker. The extended meaning of sale in section 2(g) of the Act, takes in any transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose for cash, deferred payment or valuable consideration. But in this case, the return that is being received by the bank is not from the exercise of property rights over the bank locker only but is derived from rendering various services along with a limited right to use the bank locker. The subject which is hired out is a complex one. This type of complex transaction cannot be treated as transfer of right to use any goods within the meaning of section 2(g)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Under these circumstances, this writ petition must succeed. There will be orders in terms of prayers (b), (c) and (d). There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 490 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ealer. Section 15, clause (a), of the Central Sales Tax Act does not refer to mere liability, but clause (a) says that tax will not be levied at more than one stage. So it was necessary for the Tribunal to find out whether the goods already suffered tax. If tax has already been levied then surely the goods cannot be subjected to tax again within the meaning of clause (a) of section 15. As no inference can be drawn that the goods already suffered tax, the matter requires reconsideration. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the Tribunal s order dated 10th August, 1982, is set aside and the case is sent back to the Tribunal with a direction that it will record a clear finding whether the goods in question already suffered tax before the assessee made the purchases. If the goods already suffered tax, then the Tribunal may reach the same conclusion, as it reached in the impugned order, otherwise the case will be redecided according to law. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 489 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation of a block-maker is essentially one of skill and labour, no more can be disputed in the light of the judicial pronouncements mentioned above. We therefore have no hesitation to hold that the skill and labour required for the production of the photo block is more than that is required for the production of photo prints. If that be so the main question arising for consideration and covered by questions, A, B, C, D and F, according to us, has rightly been answered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. 9.. Regarding the point covered by question E it is enough if it is said that under fiscal law there is no scope to set up the plea of estoppel. Equity has no place in taxing statute. If a particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. The point covered by question E has accordingly been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. For the reasons stated above the tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
