|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 194 Records
-
1982 (9) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... chaser while submitting the tender for the purchase of gunny bags. The above factors which have been relied on by the Tribunal are quite relevant for determining the question as to whether the assessee purchased the goods from Pamani Fertilizers and then sold them to various purchasers, or whether he merely acted as a purchasing agent. Having regard to the above factors which have been established before the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to a right conclusion in this case in holding that the assessee acted only as purchasing agent so far as the transaction of purchase of gunny bags from Pamani Fertilizers is concerned. Having regard to the fact that the addition of Rs. 28,552 made by the assessing authority on the basis of the best of judgment assessment, has been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied on the basis of the said addition has naturally to be set aside as has been done by the Tribunal. The tax case therefore fails and is dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 224 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oints are canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before us. One is that the stock variation has been duly explained by the assessee and the authorities below have erred in rejecting the assessee s explanation. As regards the slips which formed the basis of the addition to the reported turnover, the contention of the assessee is that the slips did not represent the actual sale transaction, but they represent the estimates given by the assessee to the purchasers which did not in fact materialise into actual sales. However, the authorities below, including the Appellate Tribunal which is a final fact-finding authority, have rejected the assessee s explanation and held that there was justification for making an addition on the ground of the stock difference as also on the turnover represented by the slips Nos. 8 and 16. We do not think any interference is called for. The decision of the Tribunal is based purely on facts. The revision is therefore dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 223 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. That explanation provides, inter alia, that where tax has been paid in respect of raw material for the manufacture of steel products, such steel products shall be exempt from sales tax. This explanation has been given retrospective effect from the commencement of the Act and is effective till 1st April, 1978. In the light of the aforesaid amendment with retrospective effect, the view taken by the assessing officer that that finished steel products are exigible to sales tax even if the raw materials out of which those products were manufactured has suffered sales tax, is unsustainable. In the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single Judge, allow the writ patition, quash the assessment order dated 10th January, 1978, for the assessment year 1976-77 and direct the concerned Commercial Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. In this appeal, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tution lays down that the property of the Union of India shall be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State, but under the sales tax laws the incidence of taxation is the transaction of sale or purchase and property as such is not subjected to tax. The point raised is concluded against the petitioner by a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in In re Sea Customs Act, 1878, Sec. 20(2) AIR 1963 SC 1760. A close reading of rule 52 with rule 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, clearly reveals that the Commissioner can suo motu transfer a case from one assessing authority to another where offices are situated after giving notice to the dealer. There was nothing illegal or irregular on the part of the Additional Commissioner in authorising the Commercial Taxes Officer, A Circle, to dispose of cases mentioned in the order dated 17th November, 1981. For the aforesaid reasons, the three writ petitions are hereby dismissed in limine.
-
1982 (9) TMI 221 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... recedence over any other debt, demand or claim whatsoever including a mortgage or judgment debt, whether a court has issued an attachment or not . The Supreme Court held that this rule became void being in conflict with article 19(1)(f) after the coming into force of the Constitution as it imposed unreasonable restriction on the rights of a mortgagee. We need not deal with this aspect for, as pointed out by us earlier, it is not necessary in this case to go into the constitutional validity of section 33-C. 10.. The petitions are allowed. It is declared that section 33-C does not affect the rights created in the petitioner s favour by mortgage or pledge of the dealer s property before 15th March, 1976, and that these rights cannot be sold for recovery of sales tax dues of the dealer. The petitioner will get costs from respondent No. 2, the State, in both the petitions. The Counsel s fee Rs. 100 in each case. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner in both the petitions.
-
1982 (9) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eriod 14th May, 1964, to 27th February, 1969, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners are clearly entitled to the refund of the amount paid by them as tax on cotton seeds in respect of this period. To deny this relief to them, besides other legal infirmities, would also amount to discrimination inasmuch as it would be putting persons who had paid the tax for this period in a worse position than those who did not care to do so. There is also, here, an averment in the petition that the amount of tax has in fact been refunded to some other persons similarly placed. This has not been specifically denied in the return filed by the respondents. In the result these three writ petitions are hereby accepted and a direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to refund to the petitioners the amount recovered as tax on cotton seeds pertaining to the period 14th May, 1964, to 27th February, 1969. These writ petitions are accepted with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500, one set.
-
1982 (9) TMI 219 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to how section 46B takes away the effect of section 8 of the P.D. Act. Section 46B of the Act expressly says that except as indicated in the first part, i.e., inconsistency contained in any other law or in the memorandum or article of association, or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern. No provision of the Act has been pointed out which is inconsistent with section 8 of the P.D. Act. Therefore, in my view, the effect of section 8 of the P.D. Act is not taken away by section 46B of the Act and it should be read as in addition to the provisions of the Act. This contention of Mr. Shankar Prasad has got no substance. 13.. In the result, the writ application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. SHARMA, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (9) TMI 218 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orders of a statutory authority to various retail dealers, the transaction could not be regarded as sale within the meaning of the Act. For the contrary proposition of law, Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent, has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishna Roller Flour Mills v. Punjab State 1958 9 STC 439 1958 PLR 366, in which it was held that where gunny bags containing atta were issued to depot-holders under orders of the Government, the transaction constituted a sale and sales tax could also be levied on gunny bags, but this case cannot be held to have been correctly decided in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Cement Distributors case 1973 31 STC 309 (SC). I am of the considered view that the case should be remanded to the Assessing Authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above and I order accordingly. These petitions are consequently allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 217 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessment while acting under section 19(1) of the Act. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the aforesaid questions have been referred to us for our decision. 5.. Question No. (1) is covered by the various decisions of this Court Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. M.P. Asbestos Cement and Pipe Co. 1981 Vikraya Kar Nirnaya (14) 382 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Truel Tubes 1981 Vikraya Kar Nirnaya (14) 38. This High Court in both the above decisions followed the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. 1977 39 STC 355 (SC). Following these decisions we hold that the Board of Revenue rightly held that on the facts and circumstances of the case G.I. pipes, hose pipes and rubber pipes were not taxable under entry 56 of Part II of Schedule II to the Act. 6.. In view of our decision on question No. (1), it is not necessary to answer question No. (2) and we, therefore, decline to answer the case. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 216 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of what has been laid down by the Supreme Court. Sri Rayareddy argued that the portion excerpted above and relied upon, is only an observation of the Supreme Court. Firstly I hold that it is not an observation, but it is the law that has been laid down specifically for the purpose of clarifying what was laid down in Northern India Caterers case 1978 42 STC 386 (SC) AIR 1978 SC 1591. Even if it is assumed to be an observation, it is by now well-settled that observations of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in this land. I do not find any error having been committed by the Magistrate in relying on the latter portion of section 32 of the Act, as the proceeding initiated by the respondent under section 13(3)(b) of the Act is a proceeding contemplated in the words other proceeding whether under this Act or otherwise . In fact these two are proceedings under the Act being under section 13(3)(b) of the Act. In view of the foregoing, these petitions fail and are dismissed.
-
1982 (9) TMI 215 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th conflicting decisions rendered by Benches of same strength. The decision in Pio Food Packer s 1980 46 STC 63 (SC) is a subsequent or later decision. In the circumstances, we choose to follow the later decision. Accordingly we rely on Pio Food Packer s case 1980 46 STC 63 (SC) and hold that to attract the provisions of section 6-A(ii)(a) there must be consumption of the original goods for the purpose of manufacture. In the absence of any such consumption, the petitioners are not liable to tax. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the notices issued to the petitioners are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each case. The learned Government Pleader makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion no substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court is involved in these cases. The request of the learned Government Pleader is therefore rejected.
-
1982 (9) TMI 214 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. M.P. Asbestos Cement and Pipe Co., Indore (1981) 14 VKN 382 and by another Division Bench of this Court in M.C.C. No. 94 of 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Iisco Stanton Pipe and Foundry Co. Ltd., Ujjain 1982 50 STC 207) decided on 3rd July, 1981. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the cement pipes manufactured and sold by the assessee were not used for sanitary purposes but were used for purposes of irrigation. In the circumstances the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the pipes in question were liable to be taxed under entry No. 53 and not under entry No. 56 of Part II of Schedule II appended to the Act. 4.. For the reasons stated above our answer to the question referred to us is that under the facts and the circumstances of the case cement pipes are not taxable under entry No. 56 of Part II of Schedule II appended to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (9) TMI 213 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o be deposited. The Tribunal further held that the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) was justified in rejecting the memorandum of appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee has come in revision. The learned counsel argues that when he made an application on 9th February, 1979, no order was made on it and as such the appeal could not have been dismissed on 20th February, 1979, without intimation to the assessee about the fate of the application. It is not a part of the duty of the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) to intimate the orders made on the application of the assessee. It is the assessee s duty to find out whether he had or had not been granted time. The Assistant Commissioner (judicial) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that 20 per cent of the tax assessed had not been deposited and consequently the Tribunal was also justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1982 (9) TMI 212 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al, it is not stated that the appeal could not have been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) on the ground that the tax had not been deposited and, in fact, the tax had been so deposited. In this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. The fact that no order was passed on the application of the assessee dated 9th February, 1979, will also not help the assessee. It was the duty of the assessee to find out what order had been passed. The assessee could not have presumed that merely because he had made an application for extension of time, the time would be given. When the appeal was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) the deposit of 20 per cent not having been made, the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) was justified in rejecting the appeal. The order of the Tribunal also did not suffer from any error. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1982 (9) TMI 211 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pite of the encashment of the bank guarantee a sum of Rs. 10 remained still due. Even if it is accepted, penal interest could be payable only on the balance sum of Rs. 10 after 14th March, 1973. The respondents were in error in realising penal interest on the entire tax demand for the period 14th March, 1973, to 27th July, 1973. The recovery certificate for Rs. 25,978.62 was clearly illegal. The petitioner was liable to pay penal interest from 26th December, 1971, to 14th March, 1973, on the amount of tax demanded, that is, on Rs. 82,131.30 and on the balance of Rs. 10 from 14th March, 1973, till the date of payment. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The demand notice dated 30th July, 1973, demanding a sum of Rs. 35,687.56 is quashed. It will be open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice of demand after calculating the interest payable in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner will be entitled to costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 210 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave been brought to our notice which requires that if the amount of refund is more than rupees twenty thousand, approval of Commissioner of Sales Tax has to be obtained. The learned counsel for the department stated that certain departmental instructions have been issued to this effect, but no such instructions have been brought to our notice. Even if we assume that there are such departmental instructions they cannot be pressed in justification of the delay in refunding the amount due to the petitioner. The assessing authority should not have been guided by these instructions which, as ruled in Agrawal Engineering Stores v. State of U.P. 1972 29 STC 446 1971 Tax LR 1441, are illegal. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 28,842.30 together with interest at. eighteen per cent per annum on that amount from 1st November, 1978, up to the date of payment. The petitioners are also entitled to cost which is assessed at Rs. 500.
-
1982 (9) TMI 209 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Appointment and composition of committee of inspection, Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc.
-
1982 (9) TMI 208 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Shares warrants and entries in register of members ... ... ... ... ..... e word retransfer in the last paragraph of Ex. P-l postulates only a reversal of a completed process. On the terms of Ex. P-1, therefore, it is impossible to assume that the transfers effected by the petitioners on March 31, 1977, were conditional and had not taken effect at any time The agreement was not for conditional transfer of shares, but for full legal transfer in lots, with a condition added that the lots sold were to be bought back under certain circumstances. The theory that there was no completed transfer and that there was no taxable point giving rise to capital gains is also belied by the circumstance that the petitioners themselves had included the long-term capital gains in the returns filed by them. They themselves were then of the view that the transfers had become effective, and in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution, this court cannot also now permit them to take up a different stand. The original petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
-
1982 (9) TMI 207 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Restrictions on payments ... ... ... ... ..... a fide and his action was what it ought to be. The legislative intent under section 5(1)(c) of the Act is not that the debt due by the person in foreign country should not be discharged by a local, man. The intention, as we understand, is that the Reserve Bank should be kept informed about the transaction concerned with a person outside the country and the device adopted to discharge his loan by persons here or elsewhere. The four other charges levelled against the appellant are totally extraneous to the matter and the combined penalty imposed, therefore, is disproportionate to the only count proved. Apart from that, the actual offender, i.e., Syed Meer, who has received the two drafts has been leniently dealt with by imposing a penalty of Rs. 500 only. There is no reason why a- heavy penalty should be imposed on the go-between. We feel that the ends of justice would be met if on the appellant also a penalty of Rs. 500 is imposed. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1982 (9) TMI 186 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... oth these put together is well below the taxable limit. The share of the of the lineal descendants in the HUF property amounted to Rs. 61,972. The question is whether in these circumstances the share of the lineal descendants could be aggregated with the individual estate of the deceased u/s 34 (1) (c). Both the High Court decisions namely, Delhi and Kerala relied upon by the Appellate Controller support the accountable person. There are no contrary decisions. As explained by the ld. Judges of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Godavari Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) we have no choice but to follow the Delhi and Kerala High Court decisions and decide the issue in favour of the accountable person with the result that since the individual estate of the deceased being below the taxable limit, the provisions of s. 34 (1) (c) of the ED Act have no application. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue on both the counts is liable to rejection and hence dismissed.
........
|
