|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 310 Records
-
1995 (7) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... High Court. Apart from that an application to withdraw writ petition No. 35951 of 1994 is also pending before the High Court. We are informed that the withdrawal application was initially allowed by a Bench at Lucknow but later on the arguments were heard in the said application once again at Allahabad by the Bench consisting of B.M.Lall and S.R.Singh, JJ. and the judgment is reserved. We have further been informed that writ petition No. 4158 of 1994 (Satish Mishra vs. Registrar High Court) - axising out of the same proceedings - is also pending before the High Court. Since we are setting aside the impugned judgment delivered by B.M. Lall and S.R. Singh, JJ. in Chini Mill's case in toto, all these proceedings which are pending before the High Court would be rendered infructuous. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated September 23, 1994 in writ petition No. 35951 of 1994. The writ petition before the High Court shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (7) TMI 422 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hem in a sporting spirit always bearing in mind the fact that the people of this great country are watching them with expectation. For the sake of the people and the country we do hope they will eschew their egos and work in a spirit of camaraderie. In the result, we uphold the impugned Ordinance (now Act 4 of 1994) in its entirety. We also uphold the two impugned notifications dated 1st October, 1993. Hence, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. The interim order dated 15th November, 1993 will stand vacated. If, as is reported, the incumbent CEC has proceeded on leave, leaving the office in charge of Shri Bagga, Shri Bagga will forthwith hand over charge to Shri Gill till the CEC resumes duty. The TAs will stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct parties to bear their own costs. If the CEC has incurred the costs of his petition from the funds of the Election Commission, the other two ECs will be entitled to the same from the same source.
-
1995 (7) TMI 421 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ife' for that purpose parties shall be afforded the opportunity to amend their pleadings and RCA shall raise an issue on that and the parties shall be allowed an opportunity to lead evidence, thereafter the RCA shall decide the case afresh in accordance with law, 16. As I have not dealt with the question of bona fide requirement on merits and have remitted the case to the RCA to decide the right and entitlement of the petitioner to seek eviction on bona fide requirement; the RCA shall record its finding afresh on bona fide requirement also without being influenced by its earlier order. The RCA shall decide the case expeditiously as far as possible with an outer limit of four months from the date of appearance of parties which is fixed as 4-9-1995, of which no notice shall be issued to parties as they have been noticed here. 17. Accordingly the order of the RCA dated 26-6-1993 is set aside and the case is sent back for its decision afresh in accordance with law. No costs.
-
1995 (7) TMI 420 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g clearly in them the time from which such exemptions would begin to operate ..... ..... Contradictory Press Notes were issued, which showed that the State Government itself was not sure of the true legal position, thus causing great confusion and distrust in the minds of the taxpayers. In the present case as well a little diligence on the part of the Government in employing appropriate legislative mechanism for carrying out its professed intention, could have easily avoided the present unnecessary litigation. 24.. For the reasons aforesaid, it has to be held that no tax under the Act can be levied on transactions of the wheat bran with effect from October 19, 1991. As such the impugned orders and notices to the extent they seek to levy tax under any provisions of the Act, are held to be bad, illegal and unenforceable and, are accordingly quashed to that extent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 419 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed for use by him directly in the manufacture of taxable goods by him. In the written arguments, reference has been made on behalf of the applicant to section 8(3)(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which has no relevance to or bearing on the instant case governed by section 5(1)(bb)(i) of the 1941 Act. 9.. Accordingly, in my opinion, the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 5(1)(bb)(i) is available to a registered dealer for the purchase of materials for packing of only taxable goods manufactured by him, provided such goods are specified in his certificate of registration. That being the true interpretation of section 5(1)(bb)(i) read with rule 27A(1a)(a) of the 1941 Rules, respondent No. 2 rightly rejected the application for declaration forms by the impugned order dated April 28, 1995. The application is thus dismissed without any order for costs. S.N. MUKHERJEE (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 418 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ks malted milk food from applicant-company to Royco. Therefore, consequently, there was no transfer of property in the Horlicks biscuits (manufactured by Royco in its factory) to the applicant-company. 13.. It may be noted that in view of the importance of the question involving Royco, an order was passed on August 10, 1994 for addition of Royco as a party to the present application. Accordingly, Royco was added as a party, but it did not choose to appear and make its representation. 14.. In the result, the application is dismissed. The impugned assessment order dated June 19, 1992 for the period of four quarters ending April 30, 1988 under the 1954 Act and the impugned appellate order dated January 18, 1994 are upheld. There will be no order for costs. Operation of judgment and order is stayed for eight weeks on oral prayer of the learned advocate for the applicant. S.N. Mukherjee (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, it cannot be said that there are any laches on the part of the arbitrator in giving the award. When the parties, under the clauses of the contract, have specifically chosen a named authority and not any other arbitrator, without the consent of the parties, court has no jurisdiction to interpose into the contract and appoint an arbitrator under s.8 or any other provision under the Act. The High Court, therefore, was clearly right in setting aside the order of the Senior Judge appointing an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. Since the matters are pending for a long time, the arbitrator is directed to adjudicate upon the dispute and give his award within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that in case the appellant does not cooperate in the disposal of the application, the time limit prescribed by us would not deter the arbitrator to decide the dispute according to law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (7) TMI 416 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the tax sought to be evaded I am of the view that the quantum of penalty which is just double the amount of tax sought to be evaded is not excessive. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer (Reserve). The revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has become final and the assessee has not filed any further revision before the Board of Revenue. The fact that the petitioner had failed to keep true and complete accounts has not been disputed. The petitioner has also not established as to how he is not liable for the penalty under section 45A. We find that the authorities have exercised their discretion properly. In that view of the matter we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities. Accordingly we dismiss the original petition as devoid of any merit. However, no order as to cost. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 415 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... second sale of arrack and foreign liquor. That only shows the taxable turnover for the year 1984-85 has been completed in a reasonable manner. As far as the year 1985-86 is concerned, what is added is the turnover representing two times of the actual suppression detected. This also cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive in view of the various defects established in this case. These additions were found to be just and reasonable by the Tribunal and accordingly they were sustained. 11.. We do not see any apparent error either of law or of facts in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. We are also of the view that the Tribunal has neither decided erroneously nor failed to decide any question of law attracting interference under section 41 of the Act. That being so, the questions raised in both the cases are in substance, questions of fact decided by the Tribunal. 12.. In the result, both the tax revision cases are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 414 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he abovesaid Honesty Electricals is a genuine trader. From this, the counsel wants to argue that in this case also, the abovesaid Honesty Electricals should be held to be a genuine trader. But, we are unable to accept this argument. We do not know the actual materials that were placed before the case State of Tamil Nadu v. J.C. Electricals case 1984 57 STC 16 (Mad.). But in the present case, in the light of the abovesaid statement given by Jayantilal J. Takkar of Honesty Electricals, there can be no difficulty in holding that there was actually no sale of goods to the assessee because in the abovesaid statement dated March 4, 1980, there is a categorical admission that there was no sale of goods at all by the abovesaid Jayantilal J. Takkar of Honesty Electricals. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also fails and we do not see any merit in this tax revision. 4.. In the result, the tax revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 413 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that this contention is not proved, there is nothing for us to interfere under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, since there is no error of law in the order of the Tribunal. On this short ground, this revision has to be dismissed. 4.. No doubt initially, learned counsel for the assessee argued that there should be exclusion under rule 6(c)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules as the provision existed during the abovesaid assessment year. His argument is that if such an exclusion under rule 6(c)(ii) is granted, the assessee would not have reached the limit of total turnover of Rs. 2,00,000 provided under the notification dated September 11, 1981 under section 17 of the Act and the assessee would not be assessable to tax. But there is no necessity to go into this argument of the learned counsel for the assessee in view of what we have already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Accordingly, the tax case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 412 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... composition amount was levied not on the ground that there was failure to pay tax or that there was any evasion of tax due. Sub-sections (3) and (8) of section 30 deal, inter alia, with evasion of tax. These sub-sections have not been referred or relied upon in the impugned order. Relying upon the ratio of the decision cited above and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we hold that the case of the petitioner falls under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 32. The maximum compounding fee that can therefore be levied is Rs. 3,000, as prescribed. We therefore uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and allow the above writ petition in part. Accordingly the impugned order is partly quashed and there shall be a direction to the respondents to refund the amount levied and collected by the respondents from the petitioner in excess of the sum of Rs. 3,000 pursuant to the impugned order. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1995 (7) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lso may fall in that category. If really the intention was to collect tax at one stage only it would be made clear that, if tax had been paid at one stage it need not be paid at next stage. That is not what is stated in the Government order. In the case of a manufacturer or his agent who may not be liable to pay the turnover tax at all question of reducing burden of tax under section 6-B of the Act will not arise at all. Further, tax under section 6-B is multi-point. In that view, the contention sought to be put forth before this Court that, it is with the object to recover turnover tax at least at one stage baffles all logic. 6.. There being no distinction between the dealer and manufacturer (or his agent) who is also a dealer the impugned notification is liable to be quashed to the extent it excludes manufacturer or his agent. In other aspects, the notification shall remain undisturbed. Petition is therefore, allowed. Rule made absolute, accordingly. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 410 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rely upon the extraneous materials, which were not on record before the order was passed by the lower authorities. The Joint Commissioner, relying upon the reports dated March 18, 1993, April 15, 1993 and May 11, 1993, came to the conclusion that the assessee is a dealer in groundnut. This finding arrived at by the Joint Commissioner, on the basis of the subsequent materials gathered by the department, after the order was passed by the AAC dated July 28, 1989 is not sustainable. 8.. Therefore, the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner for the assessment years under consideration are set aside and the assessments on this aspect with regard to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 are remitted back to the file of the assessing authority, with a direction to re-do the assessments on this aspect, in accordance with law, on merits, after giving opportunity of being heard, to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. No costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 409 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated March 15, 1989 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Meerut, in second appeal No. 394 of 1988 and second appeal No. 712 of 1988 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Meerut, for fresh hearing and decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove as expeditiously as possible but not later than within 3 months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. As regards STR No. 728 of 1989, it is not possible for this Court to enhance the taxable turnover. In the connected Revision No. 408 of 1989, the matter is being remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the second appeal. The question of fixation of taxable turnover will now be decided by the learned Tribunal. Therefore this S.T.R.No. 728 of 1989 is dismissed. Let a certified copy of this judgment be placed in Cross STR No. 728 of 1989. S.T.R. No. 408 allowed and S.T.R. No. 728 dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 408 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n and instead of deciding the matter itself the Tribunal has just avoided to record a decision and to get rid of it, it has remanded the proceedings to the assessing authority. This order of remand is therefore wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is therefore to be directed to dispose of the second appeal on the basis of the material available on record. For the aforesaid reason this revision is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated May 25, 1995 recorded by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 221 of 1993 (assessment year 1987-88) is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is hereby directed to record a fresh decision after hearing on the basis of the available material on record of Second Appeal No. 221 of 1993 (assessment year 1987-88) as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from today. Let a certified copy of order be provided within 4 days on payment of requisite charges. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 407 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n made further on the turnover as per accounts was deleted by the Tribunal. This appears to be a second addition. Therefore, the Tribunal did not want to restore this addition of Rs. 23,464. Considering the reasons given by the Tribunal for not restoring this amount, we are also of the opinion that addition of Rs. 23,464 cannot be made. 6.. On going through the records, we found that the assessee reported a turnover of Rs. 2,32,600 in the concerned assessment year. The additions sustained by the Tribunal approximately come to Rs. 2,27,727 plus the penalty of Rs. 515 under section 12(3) of the Act. This would go to show that for all the irregularities committed by the assessee in maintaining the accounts, the addition was made, by adding along with the reported turnover 100 per cent more. We consider this addition cannot be said to be unreasonable on the facts available on record. In that view of the matter, this tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 406 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g records recovered at the time of the abovesaid inspection. In this connection, we may also point out that in relation to the abovesaid incriminating records, the finding of the authorities below is that those records consisting of several slips and pocket note books related to the assessee only. Further, simply because there was no proof that the assessee has effected any inter-State purchases or voucher purchases from agriculturists or any other person, it can be straightaway concluded that the impugned turnovers represent only second sales. Therefore, it is clear to us that the Tribunal has erred in law in having modified, the assessment made by the assessing authority, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority. 7.. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is set aside in relation to the abovesaid two turnovers in the respective years and the order of the assessing authority is confirmed. Consequently, these tax revisions are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 405 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We went through the assessee s statement dated June 18, 1981 as well as the reply dated June 16, 1982 to the pre-assessment notice dated February 27, 1982 and we do not see any reason to differ from the reasoning of the Joint Commissioner. Further, we also notice that for the pre-assessment notice dated February 27, 1982, a reply has been sent only on June 16, 1982. No doubt, the assessee initially wanted copies of the abovesaid slips recovered. But even after those copies were furnished, the assessee did not give reply immediately thereafter. At any rate, from the assessee s statement recorded on June 18, 1981, it is clear to us that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted at all with reference to any of those slips. Accordingly, only with reference to the abovesaid levy of penalty of Rs. 9,632. We set aside the Joint Commissioner s order and confirm his order otherwise. The appeal is thus partly allowed. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal on the basis of rule 6-B is in order. But it remains to be seen that after the decision rendered in Larsen and Toubro Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993 88 STC 289 (Mad.) above referred to, and after the introduction of the new section 3-B, with retrospective effect from June 26, 1986, the order passed by the Tribunal, dated March 17, 1992 on the basis of rule 6-B is unsustainable. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remit back this issue to the file of the assessing officer, with a direction to re-do the assessment with regard to the materials used in the works contract in accordance with the provisions contained in section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and also after taking into consideration the decision rendered by this Court in Tamil Nadu Mosaic Manufacturers Association v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 97 STC 503. Accordingly this tax case (revision) filed by the department will stand allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
