|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 553 Records
-
2004 (6) TMI 623 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as High Courts. But no orders were passed on the transfer petition. On behalf of the detenu no other Writ Petitions were filed in any other High Court. But the question whether there is delay in execution of the detention order on the detenu and whether there is proper disposal of the detenu's representation in this case etc. cannot be the subject matter with regard to the other detenus even though they were also detained in connection with the allegation levelled against this detenu. We are only concerned with procedural formalities and not merits of the matter. By setting aside the preventive detention order, liability of the detenu in criminal or departmental proceedings as per the provisions of law will not be affected. In the above circumstances, the preventive detention order is set aside on all the four grounds urged by the petitioner. Hence we allow the Writ Petition. We direct that the husband of the petitioner, Shri. B. Nandakumar, should be set free forthwith.
-
2004 (6) TMI 622 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... igher judicial forum is cited before us. Further, we note that the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Vikram Ispat Vs. CCE (supra) has been followed by the North Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi-III reported in 2000 (40) RLT 1075 2000 (122) ELT 94 and also in the case of Kundalia Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi reported in 2001 (127) ELT 151. We, further, note that in identical cases, the North Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1972/2002-CE decided on 27.12.2000 and also in their subsequent decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1459/2003-NB(C) decided on 17.11.2003 have followed the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench (supra). Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench in the cited case, we hold that the impugned order is not legal and proper and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
-
2004 (6) TMI 621 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), BANGALORE-I
... ...
... ... ..... fall within the ambit of Management Consultancy at the remuneration of ₹ 13,30,000/- received by the assessee from M/s. ITC Limited is rightly subjected to service tax at the rate of 5 . Keeping in mind of the above observation I pass the following order”. 4. It is evident that the adjudicating authority has not given a proper finding. It is also seen that the case has not been properly investigated by the department. Since the appellants have registered themselves in the category of Management Consultants, one may presume that the amount received from M/s. ITC relates to the services of Management Consultancy but the adjudicating authority cannot decide issues on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. In my view, deputing staff to work in another organisation under their control would not amount to Management Consultancy. In view of my above observations, the Order-in-Original deserves to be set aside. ORDER I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2004 (6) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the learned Judges erred in revoking leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent in view of the clear assertions made in the plaint and the assertions in a plaint must be assumed to be true for the purpose of determining whether leave is liable to be revoked on a point of demurrer ?
-
2004 (6) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking completion of the construction of the canal - challenging Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the notification dated 24th March 1976 by which the river waters were directed to be shared between Haryana and Punjab - Held that:- Appeal allowed. We direct the Union of India to carry out its proposed action plan within the following time frame:
The Union of India is to mobilize a Central agency to take control of the canal works from Punjab within a month from today.
Punjab must hand over the works to the Central Agency within 2 (Two) weeks thereafter.
An empowered committee should be set up to coordinate and facilitate the early Implementation of the decree within 4 (four) weeks from today. Representatives of the States of Haryana and Punjab should be included in such Committee.
The construction of the remaining portion of the canal including the survey; preparation of detailed estimates and other preparatory works such as repair, desilting, clearance of vegetation etc. are to be executed and completed by the Central Agency within such time as the High Powered Committee will determine.
The Central and the Punjab Government should provide adequate security for the staff of the Central Agency. We conclude this chapter with a reminder to the State of Punjab that "Great states have a temper superior to that of private litigants, and it is to be hoped that enough has been decided for patriotism, the fraternity of the Union, and mutual consideration to bring it to an end"
-
2004 (6) TMI 618 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 20915 of 2003 dated September 4, 2003 (K. M. Sulekha v. State Level Committee for Sales Tax Exemption) whereunder it has been held that taking of provisional registration of the industry prior to the appointed day is mandatory and is cumulative with other conditions. Government pleader has also relied on the general clarification issued by the State Level Committee which is consistent with the view taken by me in the above judgment. In the circumstances, since the petitioner has not taken effective steps for setting up of the industry in terms of the notification, writ petitions are dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 617 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on September 4, 2003 and therein the learned single Judge has held that condition (a) along with the first part of condition (b) and either the second part of clause (b) or clause (c) have to be cumulatively satisfied. This, in our view, is the correct interpretation of the clause. In the case before us, all that the appellant had done was to acquire land for the industry prior to January 1, 2000 and nothing else was done by it. The provisional registration was obtained on August 2, 2000 which was beyond the cut-off date and therefore it cannot be said that it had taken effective steps for setting up a new industrial unit prior to January 1, 2000. The authorities below were right in rejecting its claim for sales tax exemption and the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. No fault can, thus, be found with the order under appeal. No other point has been raised. In the result the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (6) TMI 616 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , it cannot be released except on account of chances that consignments apparently coming in the name of the petitioner may not really belong to them. In the circumstances there will be a direction to the check-post authorities to release the goods on the petitioner once producing true copy of the certificate of registration issued by the assessing authority and later issuing confirmation to check-post each time when goods arrive. On receipt of confirmation and if goods are accompanied by proper documents the check-post authorities will release the goods without collection of entry tax and forward the file to the concerned assessing officer for verification of returns and for collection of tax. There will be a general direction to respondents to release future consignments to petitioner on the above terms. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is directed to look into the matter and issue appropriate instructions to cover all dealers. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2004 (6) TMI 615 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... into the question of validity of section 14A of the Act in all these cases. In view of the fact that the impugned orders in the first four cases are passed as early as in 1999 and in view of the fact that this court had stayed the said orders and the subsequent developments pointed out earlier, viz., the relationship between the department has become cordial and co-operative. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the question of sustainability of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of these cases I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. I accordingly, quash those orders. In view of the fact that impugned orders are quashed in the circumstances stated above, it is unnecessary for me to decide the question regarding the validity of section 14A of the Act in these cases. The said question is left open. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 12047 of 2001 in O.P. No. 7347 of 2001(Y) dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 614 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aken care to make the assessment under the Act on the disputed transactions, the circumstances warrant a lenient view to be taken in the matter. It is not as if a quantification of the evasion is not possible, but under section 45A of the Act a discretion is given to the authority to impose penalty up to twice the tax sought to be evaded. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1970 25 STC 211 and by a division Bench of this court in P. D. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Mattancherry 1992 85 STC 337 (Ker), I am of the view that the penalty imposed by the first revisional authority and sustained by the Board of Revenue requires modification. In the circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 is reduced to Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000, respectively. Orders passed by the authorities are modified as above. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2004 (6) TMI 613 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... March 9, 1988 of the Commissioner of Taxes. The revisional authority fell into error in acting on that basis and manner. As noticed above, the revisional authority was solely guided by the report of the Inspector to arrive at a particular sale price which in my considered opinion cannot be legally sustained. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order dated November 27, 1990 (annexure II) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaon Zone, Nagaon exercising suo motu power of revision for the period ending September 30, 1982 to September 30, 1987 under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 in respect of the petitioner cannot be sustained and con sequently orders of reassessment on that basis dated April 4, 1991 (annexure III) are also not sustainable. Accordingly, the same are set aside and quashed. The amount paid by the petitioner in terms of the interim order of this court dated December 18, 1997 shall be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition stands allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 612 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... articles, the melted gold sold inter-State does not fall within the nature of bullion. But there is no meaningful discussion or clear finding or proper reasoning on the question whether such melted gold falls within the nature of bullion or not. The confusion is compounded by the finding of the Tribunal that what was purchased by the assessee was old gold ornaments and not bullion and the absence of a clear finding as to whether the commodity sold inter-State was bullion or not. 6.. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the entire matter deserves to be reconsidered afresh by the Tribunal. Hence the impugned order dated February 25, 2004 of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 434 of 2003 is set aside. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. 7.. The sales tax revision is disposed of in the above terms. Petition disposed of.
-
2004 (6) TMI 611 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll accompanying the goods at the time of checking but it was recovered from his possession, which rules out the possibility of document being subsequently prepared and was not found to be incorrect or not genuine, no nexus between the breach and object of the provision, viz., evasion or avoidance of tax is established, the principle in Swastik Roadways 39 case 2004 135 STC 1 (SC) fully governs the facts of this case. Consequently, the order imposing penalty as sustained by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal under challenge cannot be sustained. 170.. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal dated January 1, 1998 along with orders of assessing officer dated November 16, 1990 and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated January 7, 1991 are quashed and the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated March 31, 1993 is restored by which the penalty levied under section 22-A(7) of the RST Act was set aside. 171.. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 610 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s to the seller while placing the order for the plant and machinery. How much amount is paid as advance will depend upon the terms of the contract between the parties. What is necessary is that a firm order should be placed for the purchase of necessary plant and machinery. It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because the company deposited a small percentage of the amount as advance with the seller it did not place firm orders for the plant and machinery. The reason given by the department for rejecting the application of the company for the grant of eligibility certificate is patently erroneous and cannot therefore be sustained. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition, setting aside the order dated June 8, 2003 and remanding the case to the Director of Industries for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 609 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ely recorded, is clearly covered by the aforesaid decision of the apex Court against the petitioners and in favour of the Revenue. Prayer (A), therefore, deserves to be rejected. 3.. Coming to prayers (B) and (C) which are alternative, it appears to us that the petitions raise commercial disputes between the respective petitioners and the common supplier-NDDB. As per the settled legal position, in exercise of its extraordinary, prerogative and discretionary writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would ordinarily not entertain such commercial disputes. Hence, prayers (B) and (C) are not granted, but with a clarification that it will be open to the petitioners to raise the same before appropriate forum, if at all such disputes are justiciable in the first place. 4.. Subject to the aforesaid observations in respect of prayers (B) and (C), the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged in each petition with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 608 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he expression pesticides explained in the Manual for Pesticides published by the Pesticides Association of India, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the herbicides, fungicides, weedicides, etc., can be included within the word pesticides . If that is so, in our opinion, the petitioner is eligible and entitled for exemption from payment of turnover tax as envisaged under the Notification No. FD 32 CSL 81, Bangalore, dated June 29, 1981. 19.. In the result, these revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 42 of 1997, 43 of 1997 and 44 of 1997 dated July 6, 1999 are set aside. The matter is now remanded back to the assessing authority to re-compute the tax liability of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the course of the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 607 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd order on November 17, 2003 pursuant to remand from this Court, the same is only a repetition of the order of the Tribunal granting refund. When specific orders of refund was issued by the Tribunal, it was incorrect on the part of the officer not to have issued refund voucher and there was no need to pass another order repeating the same order of the Tribunal. Therefore, interest has to be reckoned from the date of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunals order is also a refund order in terms of section 44 of the Act. 2.. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2004 (6) TMI 606 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the original Industrial Policy of 1991, there was no mention of base year production vis-a-vis the sales tax exemption and yet on the basis of continuity of the unit prior to the notification dated August 16, 1995 notifying the 1995 scheme relating to tax exemption, held that the petitioner did not charge the tax against the sales of base year production. Such a reasoning was completely a new one giving altogether a different interpretation to the issue in question and the same cannot be said to be within the four corners of the arithmetical mistake or a mistake of factual nature apparent from the record. The propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid cases squarely cover the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated September 5, 1998 and May 17, 2000 stands set aside and quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
-
2004 (6) TMI 605 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mpted from tax merely because tax has already been paid on coal dust. In Khanna Coke 1987 64 STC 335 (All) App , the dispute was whether coal briquettes were declared commodity covered under the entry of coal and coke in all its form other than charcoal . In the instant case the issue is altogether different. Even, assuming that coal briquettes fall under the entry of coal including coke in all its form but admittedly being manufactured product, liable to tax, being different commodity than coal dust out of which it was manufactured. In fact, coal dust is a raw material of coal briquettes. The coal briquettes have altogether different shape, form, moisture as well the characteristics that form the coal dust. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal, in these regards do not warrant any interference in a limited divisional jurisdiction. Petition is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated June 18, 2004, is hereby vacated. No costs.
-
2004 (6) TMI 604 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... disputed tax. Thus, by the time the matter comes up before the High Court under section 23, admitted tax would have been paid, 50 per cent of the disputed tax would have been paid and the remaining 50 per cent of the disputed tax would be covered by adequate security. Further, the High Court will not grant stay in a routine way. It will grant stay only when a strong prima facie case is made out. The High Court may also make the grant of stay subject to conditions in appropriate cases. In view of the above, we answer the question as follows High Court has the power to grant stay during the pendency of a revision petition under section 23 or appeal under section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It is needless to say that the High Court shall exercise such power of stay only in appropriate cases, if need be, by imposing appropriate terms and conditions depending on the facts of the case. The Registry may place the matter for orders before the appropriate division Bench.
........
|
