|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 199 Records
-
1981 (4) TMI 264 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... r any demand or final assessment, no mala fide intention could be attributed on their part in this case. 8. Shri N. Mookherjee, Advocate, along with Shri B.K. Moitra, Manager and Shri A.B. Bose, Works Accountant of the Appellant firm appeared for personal hearing before the Board on 21-4-1981 at Calcutta. In reiterating the written submission in the Memorandum of Appeal the appellants stressed that since duty at the higher rate was voluntarily paid by them. 9. The Board has carefully gone through the records of the oral submission made at the time of personal hearing. 10. The Board observes that no mala fide intention on the part of the appellants in this case has been revealed inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice and proceedings against the appellants were taken up after they had already paid the correct amount of duty. 11. In the circumstances, the Board considers that imposition of penalty on the appellants was unwarranted and it is accordingly set aside.
-
1981 (4) TMI 263 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... upreme Court pronounced its judgment. The result would ‘be that I would hold under Issue No. 1 that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. I would hold that the suit is not barred by limitation under Issue No. 3, and I would hold under Issue No. 4 that the period of limitation started on 6th October, 1975. So, the suit is within time. 12. However, I would hold Issue No. 2 against the plaintiff. I would hold that the suit is not maintainable because the levy of tax made by the Customs authorities was not attacked any further, and therefore, whether it was wrong or right, the payment of Customs duty became final and that is not to be reviewed merely because it is contrary to a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. 13. In view of the fact that I am holding the suit to be not maintainable and I dismiss the suit on that basis, I do not propose to deal any further with the issues on merits. As a consequence of this discussion, I dismiss the suit with costs.
-
1981 (4) TMI 262 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . It is also not a substitute for form No. XV prescribed under rule 71. It also admittedly does not conform to the instructions issued by the Commissioner. The direction in annexure B with the form in annexure C to the petition, therefore, is held to be ultra vires the powers of the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner and are hereby quashed. The Superintendent is forthwith restrained from giving effect to the annexures. As the instructions in Memo No. CTS. 73/71/55 dated 20th February, 1981, stated to have been issued by the Commissioner, have not been impugned in this petition, this Court is not invited to pass any opinion on those, and I leave it open to the petitioner to challenge those, if he is so advised, in a separate petition. The quashing of the direction in annexure B will not by itself prejudice the instructions of the Commissioner. 25.. In the result, this petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.
-
1981 (4) TMI 261 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ir claim for exemption. As argued by Sri P. Venkatarama Reddy, the petitioners would not be able to produce any better evidence. The best evidence which the petitioners can possibly adduce in support of their claim is already available. A remand for the purpose of adducing fresh evidence to explain unambiguous evidence is not warranted under the law. Cases cannot be remanded for further evidence when there is sufficient evidence for proper decision. The further enquiry directed by the Appellate Tribunal, under the circumstances, would be a purposeless exercise and waste of public time. In the state of evidence available on record, there can be little doubt that the petitioners are entitled to the exemption claimed by them in their returns on the ground that the sales of rice purchased by them from K. V. Satyanarayana are second sales and not first sales. All the revisions are, therefore, allowed, but under the circumstances, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each case.
-
1981 (4) TMI 260 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ally different. The ratio of the decisions in the above cases is that profit-making is no more a prerequisite for defining an activity as business. In that context it was held that running a welfare scheme like providing canteen facilities to workers, etc., would partake the character of business because such an activity was incidental to the principal business. 13.. In the instant case, as the business had not yet commenced, the building materials were not purchased in the course of the business. Secondly, these purchases could not constitute transactions connected with or ancillary to the business of the assessee. 14.. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. Our answer is that Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the purchase tax imposed on the purchases of building materials of M/s. Synthetics Limited, Ujjain. 15.. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1981 (4) TMI 259 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as such the retention of the seized records beyond the prescribed time made the retention, as submitted by Mr. R.N. Datta, unauthorised, void, illegal and irregular on the basis of the determinations as mentioned above. There is ample substance to such arguments of Mr. R.N. Datta. In view of the above and when admittedly there was no satisfaction before the seizure by the Commissioner that the dealer was attempting to evade payment of any tax, and in fact, when admittedly there is no such recording by the Commissioner, the rule should succeed. I order accordingly and make the rule absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Let appropriate writs be issued. This will not however prevent or prejudice the respondents from taking such or any further steps according to law, as they would be entitled to take. The certified copies of the records which were filed by Mr. S.N. Dutta on 28th March, 1978, be kept in the record. Stay of operation of the order as prayed for is refused.
-
1981 (4) TMI 258 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee was based on facts, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to delay the payment of tax to the State and therefore it was a fit case for levying penalty at Rs. 1,000. In the order of the Commissioner he has not come to the conclusion that the reason given by the assessee which was also reiterated before him, viz., that credit sales were effected and there was delay in the receipt of sale price, was not true. Therefore, in our opinion this was a case in which the exercise of discretion by the appellate authority was sound and could not be characterised as arbitrary or perverse. Therefore the Commissioner could not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the appellate authority in such a manner under section 22A of the Act. 10.. For the reasons aforesaid, we make the following order (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The order of the Commissioner dated 23rd August, 1977, is set aside. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndone the delay in filing such application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The same view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Assam Oil Co. Ltd. 1972 83 I.T.R. 456. 10.. For the reasons set out above, we must hold that the decision in the case of Vasanji Ghela and Co. v. State of Maharashtra 1968 22 S.T.C. 104. is no longer good law to the extent that it decides that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be availed of so far as applications for a reference to the High Court under the Sales Tax Acts are concerned. The petitioners application having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 61(1) of the said Act was timebarred, and the Tribunal had no power, even if sufficient cause was shown, to condone the delay. 11.. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed and the rule issued therein is discharged. There will be no order as to the costs of this petition. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (4) TMI 256 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... drawn to the observations of Basu, J., in the case of Kali Prosad Poddar v. Additional District Magistrate, Howrah 1976 2 C.L.J. 98., in aid of the proposition whether there has been valid service or not is a question of fact. As we have mentioned before, it depends on the aspect on which the validity of the service is challenged. In that view of the matter, in the facts of the case and for the reasons mentioned before, we are of the opinion that the purported service of notice in form 26 on 11th May, 1970, was not valid in law. In the premises, the question No. (ii) must be answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer. In that view of the matter, question No. (i) must automatically be answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer. For the questions being answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (4) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT
Innocent party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or mis-demeanour of his counsel
-
1981 (4) TMI 254 - SC ORDER
The question raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in Maharaja Book Depot v. State of Gujarat [1978 (10) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT] and also by the ratio of the decision in Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers [1980 (5) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (4) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellants had used the raw materials for another purpose contrary to the terms of form No. 19?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The scheme of the Act appears to be that sales tax should be levied on goods which are not included in Schedule I at least once inside the State in the series of sales and purchases even though they may have been converted into manufactured goods and that is why form No. 19 requires the purchaser to state that the goods will be used by him as raw or processing materials or as consumable stores in the manufacture of taxable goods for sale by him inside the State and section 16 of the Act provides that where any dealer has purchased any taxable goods under a certificate given by him under section 12 or section 13 of the Act and contrary to such certificate the goods are used for another purpose or are not resold or despatched in the manner and within the period certified or on the resales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of the goods so purchased no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act is actually payable by him on account of any deductions admissible under any of the provisions of that Act, then such dealer shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of the goods purchased under such certificate. The deliberate alteration of the definition of "taxable goods" in the Act also is attributable to the said intention of the State Legislature.
-
1981 (4) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up Suits stayed on winding-up order, Winding up - Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc.
-
1981 (4) TMI 230 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... on 17 of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is in parimateria to the one contained in section 58C(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, ruled that on the recognised principles of interpretation of statutes, even if the corporal punishment of imprisonment is a mandatory part of the sentence, the court can, in order to effectively carry out the statutory sentence, impose the sentence of fine only in cases where the offence is committed by the company. However, as stated above, the larger question is not relevant for the present purpose. In that view of the matter, having regard to what is stated in the affidavit in support of the summons, the contents of which are not controverted by any of the respondents, I am of the opinion that leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, should be granted to the petitioner to continue the prosecution as launched by the petitioner, against the directors and the company. Summons is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
1981 (4) TMI 229 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Annual return - General ... ... ... ... ..... r section 560 of the Act for striking the name of a company off the Register, and he had declined to concede to the request of the company to strike its name off the Register on some other ground, namely, that the company had got some liability and had advised the company to take steps to put the company under voluntary liquidation after following the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am, therefore, of the opinion that these was no mens rea on the part of the petitioners in not submitting the annual return as required under section 159 of the Act and hence the conviction of the petitioners under section 162 of the Act and the sentence of fine imposed thereunder appear to be not warranted. In the result, the application is allowed and the conviction and the sentence of fine imposed on the petitioners under section 162 of the Act for contravention of the provisions of sections 159 of the Act are set aside.
-
1981 (4) TMI 215 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up Application for ... ... ... ... ..... wound up. A copy of the winding-up order shall be drawn by the Additional Registrar as per company rules and shall be forwarded to the official liquidator and also to the Registrar of Companies as required under section 444 of the Act. The official liquidator shall forthwith take into his custody all the property and effects, books and papers of the said company. The official liquidator shall also cause a sealed copy of this order to be served on the company as also to the directors thereof by registered post. The petitioners shall get advertised within fourteen days a notice in the prescribed form of the making of this order in one issue each of, (1) Daily Naiduniya, Indore, (2) Daily Indore Samachar, and (3) Daily Hitwad, an English daily of Bhopal. The official liquidator shall take all other necessary steps in the winding-up proceedings of the said company, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Costs of this petition shall be borne by the company.
-
1981 (4) TMI 214 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression of mismanagement Powers of Government of prevent, Effect of notified order under section 18A
-
1981 (4) TMI 213 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Remuneration of directors ... ... ... ... ..... 26 for the exclusion of the payments made to the 2nd petitioner-director for services rendered in -his capacity as a solicitor and advocate. It is a certificate under provision (b) to section 309(1) that is required. The 1st petitioner has applied for the same by Ex. P-1(c) and that application is pending. In view of Exs. P-3 and P-4, in the normal course, Ex. P-1(c) cannot be rejected. But it is for the 1st respondent to consider Ex. P-1(c) and take a decision. I direct the 1st respondent to consider Ex. P-1(c) and take a decision as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within two months from today. Exhibit P-1 is quashed. Exhibit P-1(b) to the extent it insists on the filing of an application under section 310 of the Act and for furnishing any information not required under section 309, is also quashed. If any more information is to be furnished by the 1st petitioner, for that, one month s time from today is given. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs.
-
1981 (4) TMI 212 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression of mismanagement Powers of Government of prevent ... ... ... ... ..... utory stage. We have come to the conclusion that the order has to be struck down, but we have to make some interim arrangement for the running of the Company till a fresh order is passed. We are not in a position to make any interim arrangement about the company. We have, therefore, decided to suspend our order quashing the appointment of respondents Nos. 22 to 29 for a period of six months in order to enable the Company Law Board and the Central Govt. to pass a fresh order. Hence, notwithstanding the grant of the writ prayed for by the petitioner, we would direct that respondents No. 22 to 29 may continue to act as directors of the company for a period of six months to enable further orders being passed. We have suspended the operation of the writ granted by us for this period, so that the affairs of the company need not be jeopardised, as may happen, if our order comes into effect immediately. The result is that the petition is allowed and the petitioner will get his costs.
-
1981 (4) TMI 189 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... intention whatsoever to deprive the minor heirs of their legitimate shares and will register their names if required. It is now incumbent on the directors, if required, to register the names of the heirs, including petitioner No. 1 to the extent of their respective shares. The heirs, if they need, shall be entitled to receive, and may give discharge for any dividends paid to them in view of article 39 of the articles. For the foregoing reasons, this court refuses to direct rectification of the register of members, so as to register the entire 900 equity shares of late Dhrubajyoti Barua in the name of petitioner No. 1 alone, as was prayed and leaves it open for the directors to register the names of the heirs of late Dhrubajyoti Barua, including petitioner No. 1 in his place, to the extent inherited by each, if required by the heirs. In the result, with the above observations, this petition is rejected, but under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without costs.
........
|
