|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 111 Records
-
1973 (7) TMI 99 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... such paper which is printed upon, drawn upon, or written upon is not a product of paper, though it may be said that it is no more paper and it has acquired a new characteristic or utility -the characteristic or utility of a book or picture. This is what has been said by the American Supreme Court in James Pott s case26 Law. Ed. 909., already cited No man of literary culture..........would call a book, paper or a manufacture of paper............................................. A book is neither paper nor a product of paper that is how it is commonly understood too. In the case before us, the position is, therefore, quite simple. The printed material supplied by the petitioner using even his own paper is neither paper nor a product of paper. It cannot then come within item 42 of Schedule I of the Sales Tax Act and the State has no other claim to tax the petitioner. The revision case is allowed and the assessment is set aside. The petitioner will also get his costs before us.
-
1973 (7) TMI 98 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Tribunal that the turnover to the extent of Rs. 2,54,383.28 represented inter-State sales. It is however found that though the assessees claim that this turnover related to inter-State sales, the revenue proceeded on the basis that it represented intra-State sales and, on that account, these sales have not been brought to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. Now that we have agreed with the Tribunal that the transactions in question are only inter-State sales, these transactions are taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel for the assessees concedes this position and states on instructions from his clients that they have no objection for the disputed turnover being assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, if the turnover has not already suffered tax. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed and liberty is given to the revenue to proceed to assess the disputed turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 97 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w be noted as they have been noted in the aforementioned decision of the Bombay High Court. The transferee is only liable to pay the arrears of sales tax and to be assessed to sales tax for a prior period, if the previous owner has not already paid the tax. Further, he must not only be a transferee of the business, but he must also carry on the business either in the old name or under a new name. Thus, if the petitioner has wound up the business or ceased to carry on the business, she would not be liable under this section at all. It is clearly stated in the writ petition that the petitioner did carry on the business. I reproduce para. 4 of the petition. It states That the petitioner carried on the business, as aforesaid, after the death of her deceased husband. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner cannot succeed and the writ petition has to be dismissed. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rporation should be taken to be in the course of export as the property in the goods passed to the corporation only after the goods had been loaded on board the ships. The case before us is an a fortiori one in that in the shipping documents the assessee has been shown as the consignor and the goods are deliverable to its order. It is therefore clear on the facts of this case that the principle of the decision in Erattamuthu Nadar v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 1971 28 S.T.C. 649. cannot be invoked and the transactions in question have to be held to be sales In the course of export. The order of the Tribunal on this aspect has, therefore, to be upheld. The result is, the tax case is partly allowed so far as it relates to canteen sales. There will, however, be no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that It is open to the assessee to claim exemption in relation to canteen sales on the basis of G.O. No. 2238 Revenue dated 1st September, 1964. Petition partly allowed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 95 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vance. Trade discount is the one allowed to a customer if he places an order for a certain amount or quantity or more. Such a discount is given to encourage a buyer to buy more at a time or within a period of time. When the Legislature has specifically used the words cash or other discount , it must be taken that it was aware of the normal trade practice in commercial circles of giving cash or other discounts. In the above case we sustained the claim for deduction on the ground that the discount given at the end of the year based on the total purchases by a customer came within the expression other discount . In these circumstances, we have to hold that the bonus discount given by the assessee cannot be called a cash discount so as to attract the applicability of section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act which merely excludes cash discount and not all trade discounts. The tax cases are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 94 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal that having regard to the nature of the lot cooly charges collected by the assessees being service charges which do not form part of the sale price, the mere fact that there is some excess collection in the hands of the assessees will not make them part of the sale price. Lot cooly charges were excluded from the sale price specifically on the ground that they are service charges and, therefore, cannot be taken to be a consideration for the transfer of property in the goods. Therefore, service charges which cannot be treated as consideration for the transfer of property in the goods, cannot be part of the sale consideration even if they remained in the hands of the assessees without payment to the lot men who were engaged for doing that service. We, therefore, hold that even the excess collections cannot be taken to form part of the taxable turnover. The result is the tax cases are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s paid by the customer for the services rendered by lot men in assisting them to select the required specified goods they want out of the total stock or lot held by the assessees. Therefore, we are inclined to agree, with respect, with the view expressed in Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 1969 23 S.T.C. 158., that lot cooly charges are collected de hors the sale and that the explanation in question will take in only the sum charged for anything done by the assessees in respect of the goods sold and not other amounts which have no sufficient nexus with the sale. In these circumstances, we must say that no convincing reason is shown to have the decision in Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer reconsidered. The result is the tax cases are dismissed with costs in T.C. Nos. 16 of 1970 and 78 of 1970. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each of the above two cases. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the other cases. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they are textiles . The word textile has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, it must be interpreted according to its ordinary or popular sense, the sense in which they are commonly understood in ordinary parlance, and not in its primary or technical sense. On a due consideration of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the assessees case that as the articles in question have been made with cloth as the base, the processed article has to be taken as cloth or textile. As already stated, the processed articles have different properties and characteristics and are intended for different use and in commercial circles, they are treated as entirely different from cloth or textile. We, therefore, hold that the articles in question are not textiles falling within item 4 of Schedule III to the Act and, as such, not exempt from tax. In this view we set aside the decision of the Tribunal. The result is the tax case is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te of 38 per cent cannot be taken to indicate that there was any suppression. The Tribunal, therefore, refused to sustain the estimate made by the authorities in that year unless there were serious defects pointing out purchases or sales suppressions and stated that the low gross profit margin alone cannot be taken to reject the accounts. In this year, the assessee s accounts have shown a gross profit rate of 39 per cent as against 38 per cent shown in the previous year. In addition, the assessee s taxable turnover is more by one lakh of rupees than the previous year. Having regard to the acceptance of the 38 per cent gross profit rate in the earlier year, we have no reason to say that the gross profit rate of 39 per cent shown this year indicates that the assessee had any suppressed turnover, either of purchases or of sales. Therefore, the addition made in this case cannot be sustained. The tax case is, therefore, allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of opinion that if it is held that condensed milk is not milk, but it is a milk product, it would not be possible to hold that its sale is generally exempt from payment of sales tax under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Since, however, I have come to the conclusion that condensed milk is, in fact, milk and not a milk product, as contemplated by Notification No. S.T. 911/X dated 31st March, 1956, the turnover of its sale is generally exempt from payment of sales tax under section 4(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Such a turnover is, therefore, also not liable to Central sales tax as provided in section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the result, I answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the dealer who will be entitled to receive one set of costs of these references which is assessed at Rs. 300. R.L. GULATI, J.-I agree. C.S.P. SINGH, J.-I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (7) TMI 89 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The first contention urged by Mr. Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that it was the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to have made an order under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act as it then stood. The provisions of the said proviso have to be invoked by the appellant if he wants to avail of the same. The appellant did not make any application before the Deputy Commissioner nor did he make any prayer in his appeal to that effect. The Deputy Commissioner was, therefore, right in rejecting the appeal of the appellant for non-compliance with the provisions of the section. The next contention urged by the petitioner s counsel relates to the amendment of section 20(3) of the Act which came into force on 1st April, 1970. It can have no retrospective operation in respect of an appeal filed on 14th November, 1969. The result is this revision petition fails and is dismissed, but no costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 88 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6-A or not in respect of a particular dealer. Undoubtedly, the discretionary power has to be exercised in a fair way. The reasoning which has been advanced by the Commissioner seems to be very legitimate and germane. From the administrative point of view, it will be difficult for the Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam-I Circle, to effectively control and exercise check in respect of the petitioner s business carried on beyond his jurisdiction. If the turnover was small or the business was purely seasonal, the difficulty that arises in the case of a dealer with heavy turnover would not be found. 7.. Since, in our opinion, good reasons have been given by the Commissioner for withholding exercise of his discretion in favour of the petitioner, we are not in a position to quash his order and direct him to give the relief under rule 6-A of the Rules to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. B.K. RAY, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ditional grounds in respect of the turnover which has already been questioned by him by filing an appeal in time. The order of the Tribunal in this respect has therefore to be set aside. The learned counsel for the assessee did not question the order of the Tribunal holding that the transactions are not works contracts, but actual sales. Now that we have held that the application for raising additional grounds should be entertained and the additional ground considered by the Tribunal, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of the C forms referred to in the additional grounds and to decide the question whether the assessee is entitled to a concessional rate of tax in view of the C forms produced. It is open to the assessee to raise such of those grounds as are open to him in respect of the turnover in dispute, except the question of works contracts, which has been conceded before us. The tax case is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . State of Madras 1965 16 S.T.C. 441. In that case, it was held that where a customer goes to a photographer s studio and engages the photographer s services to take a picture, he is bargaining not merely for the special skill which the photographer has, to produce a negative but also to supply from that negative as many copies of the finished positives as the customer may require and that the contract in such a case is a contract for sale of goods and not a contract for work and labour. But the principle of that decision will not apply to the facts of this case, where under the provisions of the Copyright Act a right to own and exploit the finished product is always with the advertiser and not with the assessee. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in this case. The tax cases are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in T.C. No. 357 of 1969 alone. There will, however, be no order as to costs in T.C. No. 441 of 1969. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 85 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of that income on the Hindu undivided family would be contrary to the provisions of the Act, particularly section 14(1) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that if the assessment proceedings initiated under section 34 of the Act culminates in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family, appropriate adjustments have to be made by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the tax realised by the revenue in respect of that part of the income of the family assessed on the individuals of the said family. To do so is not to reopen the final orders of assessment, but in reality to arrive at the correct figure of tax payable by the Hindu undivided family. 9.. We have omitted to refer to the numerous decisions cited before us by counsel for the revenue not because they are not relevant but we think what has been referred to by us are enough to dispose of these cases. We dismiss these tax revision cases subject to what is stated above. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 84 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of assessment, the said turnover cannot be said to be an escaped turnover. In such cases, the order granting deduction or exemption has to be corrected in revision under section 21 of the Act. This court has held in Chikanarasimhiah v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore City Division, Bangalore 1971 28 S.T.C. 98 at 101. , that if the exemption of the turnover was improper, then the matter is not one for proceeding under section 12-A but under section 21 of the Act as stated earlier and that section 21 empowers the revisional authority to revise the orders passed by the subordinate authorities, if on examination of the record, the revisional authority is satisfied that the order of the subordinate authority is not legal or proper . Following the said decision, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal made in S.T.A. No. 419 of 1968 is hereby reversed. The petitioner is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 83 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the point will be relevant as to whether such an assessment could be said to attract the periods of limitation prescribed in the proviso to section 13(6) of the Act. It would then also be relevant to consider as to whether the period prescribed in the first part, namely, four years or that prescribed in the second part, namely, two years from the date of the appeal, revision or review order would be applicable. But so far as the question which has been referred to us in the present case is concerned, suffice it to say that in view of the foregoing discussions the question must be answered in the negative. It is, accordingly, held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the order of review dated 5th December, 1966, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, reviewing his predecessor s order dated 9th November, 1959, is barred by time. There will be no order as to costs. UNTWALIA, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1973 (7) TMI 82 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 964 15 S.T.C. 753 (S.C.). The doubts and difficulties only stand enhanced by the fact that the sale of the tea chests in the Ben Gorm s case 1964 15 S.T.C. 753 (S.C.). was with the export quota, and the purchaser of the tea knew that it was for export. With the provisions of the Tea Act superadded, the majority judgment found that an obligation to export did not arise from law, or from contract, or from the nature of the transaction. The dissenting judges found otherwise, emphasising the thinness of the dividing line. That is further emphasised by the distinction in the majority judgment between sale for export and sale in the course of export. But the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Kotak s case 1973 32 S.T.C. 6 (S.C.). was prepared to find that even in the absence of any arrangement enabling the assessee to import under an import licence of the mills on behalf of the mills, the transaction could still be regarded as a sale in the course of import. Appeal dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 81 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , having regard to the nature of the said vehicles. For the same reasons, which we have discussed above, there was no evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to justify the finding of allowing the aforesaid rates of depreciation for different classes of vehicles. On the contrary, it has followed its own decision in M/s. Premraj Ganpatram Finance Department s case, referred to hereinabove, which in its turn has been decided merely by relying on the rate of depreciation which worked out in the illustration of the Supreme Court as stated above. Our answer, therefore, to the question in Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 1972 is that On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no legal evidence before the Tribunal to justify the finding that the depreciation should be allowed at the rate of 25 per cent on motor trucks and 20 per cent on motor cars taken on hire-purchase. In both the references, there should be no order as to costs. References answered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 80 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ks, etc., by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, he has none the less power to order an enquiry in which such materials can be legally considered. In our opinion, this further question does not arise, as rightly held by the Tribunal that the Deputy Commissioner was not within his powers under section 57 of the Act to initiate proceedings on materials which were not part of the record of the assessment. In that view of the matter, therefore, the further question does not arise and it does not require to be answered. We, therefore, answer the question as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner, for initiating suo motu revision under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, could take into consideration only the record of the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner and could not consider the material which did not form part of the said record. The State shall pay the costs of the opponent. Reference answered accordingly.
|
