|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 267 Records
-
1986 (8) TMI 438 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ensuring social, economic and psychological rehabilitation of the children who are either accused of offences or are abandoned or destitute or lost. Moreover, it is not enough merely to have legislation on the subject, but it is equally, if not more, important to ensure that such legislation is implemented in all earnestness and mere lip sympathy is not paid such legislation and justification . for non- implementation is not pleaded on ground of lack of finances on the part of the State. The greatest recompense which the State can get for expenditure on children is the building up of a powerful human resource ready to take its place in the forward march of the nation. We have already given various directions by our orders dated 12th July 1986 and 5th August 1986. We have also in the meantime received reports of survey made by several District Judges. We shall take up these matters for consideration at the next hearing of the writ petition which shall take place on 1.9.1986.
-
1986 (8) TMI 437 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tioner. In the premises aforesaid it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner failed in error in holding that the petitioner s business is one of the existing industrial unit of Orient Industries and it is meant for diversification of sale of Orient fans. No material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the claims so made. This claim being so unfounded and so unsound that it cannot stand a moment s scrutiny, has to be rejected. For the reasons aforesaid this application succeeds. The rule is made absolute. The order dated 28th January, 1981, and the notice dated 14th November, 1980, are set aside. Let appropriate writs be issued. The respondent No. 2 is directed to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner in terms of the notification dated 1st April, 1976, as amended by the notification dated 1st April, 1980, within two weeks from the date of communication of the operative part of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 436 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax 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 cases and the writ petitions are allowed to the extent, and in the terms, indicated above. The departmental authorities shall take appropriate consequential action and pass orders accordingly, wherever called for. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocates fee Rs. 200 in each. The excess collections, if any, made from the petitioners shall be adjusted against the tax due from them for future period. If, in any case, the department finds that the petitioners have 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. Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 435 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. The Supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice needs to be strongly discouraged. Thus, I think that the present writ petition is misconceived as the petitioner had a statutory remedy and before approaching this Court the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy. The respondents are directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner pending with them expeditiously. Any observation made in this case will not prejudice the case of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 434 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the submission made on behalf of the department that in fixing the security it is not only the return filed by the dealer that there is no liability of tax on the dealer that should be taken into consideration for the said purpose. In the present case, I find that the appellate authority did not take into consideration the various ingredients mentioned in the aforesaid section. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal could not be sustained. In the result the revision is allowed. The order dated 14th May, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, U.P., Allahabad Bench I, Allahabad, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded before the Sales Tax Tribunal, U.P., Allahabad Bench I, Allahabad, for deciding the question of imposition of security against the applicant-firm (M/s. Mahadeo Traders), after taking into consideration all the ingredients mentioned in section 8-C(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, afresh. Costs on the parties. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 433 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssioner (Judicial) is not available on the file of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). That is neither here nor there in so far as the statutory compliance is concerned. The assessing authority is bound to give an opportunity to the dealer as contemplated by rule 12-B(24) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. In my opinion the order of the Tribunal in this regard deserves to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. It is held that the applicant is not liable to tax on stock of foodgrains in the sum of Rs. 14,287.69 so held by it on 2nd September, 1976. As regards the other claim of benefit of form 3-Ka in regard to the paddy sales of Rs. 6,967.14 the impugned order of the Tribunal in so far it negatives this claim of the applicant is set aside and this matter is remanded back to the assessing authority for affording an opportunity to the assessee to remove the defects as observed above. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 432 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view of section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the burden of proof is on the assessee. In view of the above, I find no substance in the submission made on behalf of the assessee. All the three revisions filed by the assessee, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. As regards the three revisions filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, I find that the argument advanced relate to the sufficiency of evidence or appraisal of evidence for the reduction of turnover. The question regarding sufficiency or adequacy of material or appraisal of evidence cannot be gone into by the High Court in a revision filed under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The three revisions, therefore, filed on behalf of the department fail and are dismissed. In the result, all the aforesaid six revisions are dismissed with parties to bear their own costs. Interim order dated 12th January, 1982, passed in the three revisions filed by the assessee stand automatically vacated. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 431 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of section 10, i.e., an order on the stay application. If the legislature has not contemplated even the filing of the revision against the order passed on the stay application itself it cannot be held under the law that the said section 11 contemplates a revision against an order refusing condonation of delay in moving the stay application. The case of Moti Chand and Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1980 UPTC 1183, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, does not relate to a revision contemplated by section 11 of the Act where the words used are entirely different than that under section 9 of the Act. In this view of the matter I am clearly of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the standing counsel has got force and no revision under section 11 of the Act lies in the present case. In the result the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay order dated 31st October, 1983, passed in the case stands automatically vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 430 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the lorry. The appellant who claimed to be interested in the goods was heard through counsel and a chartered accountant before exhibit P1 order was passed. There was no defect of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice involved in passing that order nor are we satisfied that the authorities went wrong in trying to realise the penalty realisable in respect of the offending goods from the person who obtained release of the same. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 8.. We should also add that Sri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Special Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondents, stated that the moment either the goods are made available by the owner thereof, or the owner discharges the liability to pay the penalty, all proceedings against the petitioner and evidenced by exhibits P2, P4 and P5 will stand withdrawn. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een paid by the commission agent, the dealer was entitled to adjust the same so as to save double taxation and the recovery could be made only after adjusting such payment by the commission agent. This decision also does not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner. We, therefore, hold that in view of the retrospective amendment made in the law imposing an embargo on the refund of the security amounts deposited under section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time, the direction contained in our judgment dated 9th of August, 1982, clearly deserves to be reviewed and modified. In the result, the two review applications succeed and are allowed. The direction contained in our judgment dated 9th of August, 1982, is modified to the extent that the respondents are directed to refund the security amounts deposited by the two petitioners after the legislative embargo on the refund of the said amounts is eventually lifted. Review applications allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 428 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad/Check Post, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part to this extent that the orders dated 17th July, 1986 and 13th August, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad/Check Post, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, are quashed and he is directed to decide the application made by the petitioner afresh after hearing the petitioner. In case the Assistant Commissioner does not agree with the plea raised by the petitioner in regard to the value of the goods and his prayer for permission to furnish bank guarantee in place of cash security is not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, he shall record reasons for doing so. In the circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Let certified copies of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within three days. Petition partly allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 427 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 1st August, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Check Post, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, respondent No. 2, is quashed and he is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner under section 13-A(6) of the Act afresh after accepting and taking into consideration the documents which were sought to be filed by the petitioner before him. The question as to whether these documents are relevant for the consignment in question or not, will of course, have to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner after accepting them. Since the goods which were seized are stated by counsel for the petitioner to be perishable, the Assistant Commissioner shall decide the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of this order within a week of the production of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order may be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner today on payment of necessary charges. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 426 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of Sales Tax or his representative within time, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to have decided that question. I am not inclined to accept the said contention. Once a plea is raised by the assessee that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by time, the Tribunal is supposed to record a finding. It is open to the Tribunal to accept or not to accept the plea raised but once the plea of limitation has been raised, in my opinion, the Tribunal in not deciding the said plea has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and the order passed by it cannot be sustained. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated January 16, 1986 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh and to consider the plea of limitation raised by the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 425 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of survey, hence it has to be brushed aside, is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for the dealer has relied upon the case of Unnao Plastic Products v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1979 UPTC 1312, to the effect that if explanation is not furnished to the surveying officer but is furnished at the time of assessment, the same cannot be brushed aside if there is no other material on which the account books could be rejected. In the present case also I find that none of the authorities have anywhere recorded any other finding for the rejection of the accounts. The present case is, in my opinion, squarely covered by the aforesaid case of Unnao Plastic Products 1979 UPTC 1312. The second ground, therefore, taken by the Tribunal for confirming the rejection of accounts also fails. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order dated 15th April, 1983, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the book version of the dealer is accepted. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 424 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has categorically recorded a positive finding that On a careful consideration of the entire material before us we do not find any material on record to hold that the goods were sent as a result of prior agreement to sell between the factory at Loni, Ghaziabad, to ex-U.P. purchaser. Therefore, the assessee s claim of branch transfers of stock cannot be rejected and the authorities below committed error in treating the transactions in question as inter-State sales. In view of the said finding I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that the transfers made by the assessee were branch transfers of the stock and were not inter-State sales and in doing so the Tribunal has not committed any error. No other point has been pressed in this revision. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 423 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ies and have carefully perused the orders passed by the President, Sales Tax Tribunal, as well as of Sri D.D. Srivastava. Sri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the Revenue, has not been able to point out any error in the order of the President, Sales Tax Tribunal, as well as of Sri D.D. Srivastava, who declared the assessee non-assessable. The President, Sales Tax Tribunal, has given valid reasons in holding that the goods sold in Delhi branch could not be included in assessee s U.P. sales and it could not be treated as assessee s escaped sale turnover. The findings are supported by various invoices issued by the Indian Oil Corporation and in my opinion the findings recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent-assessee are based on sound reasons and relevant materials on the record and the same does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. In the result the revision fails and is rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 422 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat point, which has not been done in this case. I have heard the respondent also, and nothing to the contrary was pointed out by him. In the present case, none of the authorities has examined the question whether it was an export as contemplated under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. I am, therefore, of opinion that it is a fit case for remanding it to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, with a direction for deciding the question of exemption afresh, after giving opportunity to the applicant in the light of the observations made above. In view of the aforesaid observations, I allow the present revision and quash the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, dated 26th May, 1986 and remand it back before it. The case shall now be decided afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations after giving opportunity to the applicant. On the facts and circumstances of this case costs shall be on the parties. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 421 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... usion on the decision of the Assam High Court in Government Medical Store Depot, Gauhati (Assam) (Civil Rule No. 460 of 1969 decided on 26th June, 1973-Gauhati High Court). The said decision of the Assam High Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court as noted earlier. The facts before us in this reference and the facts before the Supreme Court do not appear to be different in any significant manner. We also note that the Supreme Court noted the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and held that the said decision should be confined to the facts on record of that case. For the reasons as above, we answer questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 all in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 we refrain from answering question No. 1 as the answer to the other questions disposes of the reference. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (8) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... laced reliance on a decision of this Court in Raj Kumar Sharawan Kumar Oil and Rice Mills, Lucknow v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1983 53 STC 161 1983 ATJ 218 wherein it has been held that if an assessee, who is holding a recognition certificate under section 4-B, commits a breach of the conditions of the recognition certificate, the consequences would be provided under the relevant provisions of the law and the said breach cannot disentitle the assessee from taking the benefit of section 4-B(1)(a) of the Act in assessment proceedings. I find myself in full agreement with the aforesaid decision of this Court. No other point has been pressed for consideration. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of section 11(8) of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (8) TMI 419 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r there was sufficient material for issuance of notice under section 21 of the Act or not. The Tribunal in the instant case instead of deciding the case on merit, on the basis of the material on the record, has on the contrary directed the first appellate court to make further enquiries which in my opinion is not permissible, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the first appellate court. Sri V.M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has tried to support the order passed by the Tribunal but has not been successful in repelling the contention raised on behalf of the assessee. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned for passing suitable order under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
........
|
