|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 295 Records
-
1992 (9) TMI 364 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the assessing authority decided the case of the petitioner on 25.2.1991. 32. Upshot of the above discussion is that the retention of the account-books, registers and other documents etc. of the petitioner was illegal and the same should be returned to the petitioner firm forth-with. The assessment made on the basis of those account-books etc. cannot be said to be illegal and it is open for the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment order and challenge the same in accordance with law. 33. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the period for filing an appeal against the assessment order has already expired as the matter was pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner may file an appeal against the assessment order passed by the authorities and the objection of delay will not come in the way of the petitioner if the appeal is filed within 4 weeks from the date of this order. 34. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
1992 (9) TMI 363 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 1992 when this case was being heard the complainant was confronted by this Commission with the operation of her account upto January 1980. (17) From the documents on the file it is also clear that in April. 1981 the complainant had written to the Bank expressing her gratitude for the service rendered to her. The complaint against Mr. Digaria and the Branch Manager of the Bank was filed later on after the loan to her son was refused by the Bank. By her letter dated 7th July, 1992 the complainant has tried to give explanation to the effect that the loan was not sanctioned to her son on account of 'credit squeeze'. The fact remains that criminal complaint was filed by the complainant after the loan to her son was refused by the Bank. (18) We do not want to dwell much on the merits of the case as it is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that it is a very state one. For the reasons given above, we dismiss the appeal with costs which we assess at ₹ 1,000.00.
-
1992 (9) TMI 362 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to default of the investigating officer without court's adverting to the merits but strong grounds are necessary to cancel the bail. To that extent brother Ahmadi, J. also laid emphasis, namely, strong grounds are to be made out in the charge-sheet. With respect I agree with brother Ahmadi's emphasis that filing the charge-sheet (challan) itself is not sufficient. However, I lay emphasis that the High Court or the Court of Sessions should consider the merits of the case. With respect, K.J. Shetty, J., laid emphasis on the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet and the power for cancellation under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code. Unfortunately, the ratio in Parida's and Bashir's cases was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, which was directly on the point and for the reasons stated I find it difficult to agree with the learned Judge in that respect. I am in full agreement with the view expressed by brother Ahmadi, J. and the order proposed by him.
-
1992 (9) TMI 361 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... can foist criminal liability upon a person about whom it has accepted that on this set of facts and evidence he cannot even be proceeded against in the adjudication proceedings. In criminal matters the degree of proof required is far more strict. If the departmental authority, has no good case for purposes of adjudication. it cannot claim to have a good case for purposes of criminal prosecution, particularly when the prosecution is also based on the same set of facts and evidence." Admittedly the petitioner is being prosecuted on the same set of facts and circumstances, which were before the Collector of Customs at the time of his verdict he found the appellant to be innocent and exonerated him of the charge of smuggling. It thus does not appeal to the reason as to how the petitioner can be allowed to be prosecuted for the same set of facts and on the basis of the same evidence which were before the appellate authority at the time of the adjudication. Complaint quashed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 360 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Supreme Court in the case of the State of U.P. v. Delhi Cloth Mills, AIR S.C. 735 where the Supreme Court has considered the U.P. Excise Act of 1910, and its Excise Manual and has said that the excise duty on excess transit wastage was valid in law. 23. The petitioners are therefore not right in contending that duty cannot be levied on breakages in transit or while in storage and on villages. The fact that upto the end of 1976 no duty was in fact charged on breakages and villages does not mean that the State is not entitled to collect or recover duty in respect of breakages which occur in transit after the goods are imported into the State or on villages which occur after the goods are stored in a bonded warehouse. The two circulars, therefore, are valid in law and they cannot be challenged. 24. In the premises, the appeals as well as the writ petitions are dismissed and the Rules are discharged. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to coasts.
-
1992 (9) TMI 359 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... year 1975 in these three firms was 6, 10 and 5, respectively. These firms are, therefore, clearly outside the purview of the Act. So far as Bafna Motors is concerned, the report (Exh.D) shows that maximum number of employees in 1975 was 25. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the number is correct nor does this firm fall within the purview of the Act under Section 1(5) read with the relevant notification issued thereunder. The order, according to him, was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on this count. The respondent, therefore, shall be at liberty so far as Bafna Motors is concerned to proceed with the determination of their liability, if according to him independently it falls under the purview of the Act and after giving due notice and proper opportunity of hearing, pass such orders as he may deem fit in accordance with law. 11. In the result, all the four writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited.
-
1992 (9) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e citizens can be safeguarded and the precious time of this Court can be saved. The detaining authorities are required to deal with such cases with more care and circumspection. They should not leave such cases to be dealt with by lower officials and should kept a track on such cases from beginning to the end and also take care that the representations, if any made by the detenus are also dealt with expeditiously without any delay. In matters where the detention orders are passed in relation to such persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should always apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail and stating the necessity, of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws. We earnestly hope that the concerned authorities shall deal with such matters with special care. 15. In the result, we dismiss this special leave petition.
-
1992 (9) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nion, that among the two of them, the fifth respondent is entitled to preference for more than one reason viz., (1) the fifth respondent society is composed of members of Vadde Community who are the traditional stone-cutters. Though they do not belong to Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes, they are at the lowest rung among the backward classes, whereas the petitioner society is composed of mere labourers who do not necessarily belong to the traditional stone-cutter community. (2) The appellant/society admittedly holds a lease in respect of 65 acres whereas the fifth respondent has none-apart from the one in controversy. Mr. Madhava Reddy has brought to our notice that even the fifth respondent has a lease in respect of 15 acres. Even if we take that fact into consideration, still the fifth respondent is entitled to preference, because its area is far smaller than that of the appellants. 11. For the above reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 12. No. costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondent was allowed. The appellant challenged the order passed in favour of respondent in his appeal. It was dismissed and preliminary objection of the respondent was upheld. The Court observed, 'We are therefore of opinion that so long as the order in the appellant's appeal No. 7 confirming the order setting aside his election on the ground that he was a holder of an office of profit under the Bihar Government and therefore could not have been a properly nominated candidate stands, he cannot question the finding about his holding an office of profit, in the present appeal, which is founded on the contention that that finding is incorrect. 6. Thus the finality of finding recorded in the connected suit, due to non filing appeal, precluded the Court from proceeding with appeal in other suit. In any view of the matter the order of the High Court is not liable to interference. 7. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 355 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... TR (1988) 2 C.A.T. 232, is concerned, the decision does help the appellant, but for the reasons mentioned by us earlier, we hold that the view of the Tribunal declaring the retrospective operation of Rule 10 (4) as invalid, is erroneous. 15. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in any view of the matter the appellant must be paid his salary for the period 1.10.1988 to 22.2.1989 as he was allowed to join his post and discharge his duties during this period. This claim is well founded. The appellant will have to be paid for this period and the respondents are hereby directed to make necessary payments after adjusting any amount, which might have already been paid within a period of two month from today, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per annum with effect from 1st of November, 1992 till payment. 16. Subject to the relief granted in the previous paragraph the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he provision requires a liberal interpretation so as to preserve such interests and should not be so rigidly construed as to warrant the throwing out of an appeal in limine merely because the tax is not paid before the appeal is filed. 47. We, therefore, agree with the majority of the Division Bench of the High Court that Section 170(b) of the DMC Act is intra vires. The District Judge has no jurisdiction to waive the condition of deposit or stay the collection of the tax pending disposal of the appeal before him. We, however, hold that he has the power to adjourn the hearing of the appeal or pass interim orders enabling the assessee to pay up the taxes before the appeal is actually heard and determined. But this is a power which he shall have to exercise judicially on the basis of the requirements of each case, the interests of revenue and the position of the cases on the hearing List before him. 48. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Committee was illegally constituted as proviso to Rule 10 empowers the General Manager to constitute a Board other than the one mentioned in Rule 10. From the record it appears the power was exercised by the Director under the proviso and the exercise of power docs not appear to be vitiated for any reason. 6. The High Court appears to have been persuaded more by the the Interview Board, particularly by some over-writing in the marks which were awarded against some of the officers and drew an inference that probably it was not fair. We do not find any justification ¦ for the same after perusal of the record. Moreover so far respondent is concerned average marks allotted by all the four members did not give an impression that either the marking was arbitrary or that they were biased against him. 7. In the result the appear succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. But there shall no order as to costs.
-
1992 (9) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nlal Waza and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. the Union of India and its officers are bound to follow the same even if the members of the Forum or a majority of the engineers were not individually parties in the case before the Allahabad High Court. Since, the issues now raised have been agitated twice over, it is not permissible for the petitioners to once again reagitate the matter by coming now under the 'cloak' of a Forum. The preliminary objection, therefore, must succeed and is upheld. The writ petition is accordingly held not maintainable and dismissed. 23. In view of our discussion above relating to writ petition No. 460 of 1992, the special leave petition Nos. 9063-64 of 1992 also fail and are dismissed as the issues involved in both are common and identical. 24. We also do not find any justification for transfer of the various cases referred to in Transfer Petition (c) No. 417 of 1992 to this Court. Transfer Petition is also therefore dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and that that rule does not permit the benefit being given on production of counterfoil retained by the purchasing dealer or the photostat copy of the same. The following observation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also emphatically brings out the point In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1965 16 STC 607 (SC), State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal and Co. 1967 20 STC 374 (SC) and the subsequent decisions following that view, it is settled that in order to claim the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, the dealer must furnish a declaration in the prescribed form C in the prescribed manner. Unless that is done, the benefit of the concessional rate claimed by the dealer cannot be given. 9.. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision and hence the revision petition shall stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 350 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sent case involves only grinding lime shell into powder, the resultant product is treated as a different commercial commodity so we see very much force in the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and the decisions cited by her. 12.. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in holding that shell grit was not a different commodity from the original lime shell. Admittedly, the original lime shell could not be used as poultry feed. Only when it is converted into shell grit, it can be used as poultry feed. Therefore, the shell grit cannot be equated with the original lime shell and treated as one and the same commodity. In commercial parlance also, it is treated only as a different commodity. 13.. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal in so far as it deleted the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 27,668.12 is set aside and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that regard is restored. The tax case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 349 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Government is directed to reconsider their cases in light of the interpretation of the 1980 resolution the effect of the two impugned circulars and also the interpretation of the corridor condition of the resolution of March, 1981. 46.. In the result, both these petitions are partly allowed. A writ of mandamus shall issue in each of these petitions directing the respondents to reconsider the cases of the petitioners in light of what has been held and observations made in this judgment. The respondents are also directed to reconsider and decide the cases of the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court in order to avoid further delay and complications. No order as to costs. 47.. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we direct the respondents to maintain status quo till they take an appropriate decision as directed by us and communicate the same to the petitioners within 48 hours thereafter. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 348 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1969 24 STC 487 (SC). 9.. The facts of the present case present no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the transactions of supply of hard broken ballasts by the assessee to the Railways were at the specified rate by way of sale as found by the Tribunal. The references are accordingly disposed of in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. 10.. Before we part with the case, we may point out a disturbing feature which has attracted our notice. The Assistant Commissioner had nowhere (sic) observed that the transport charges and other charges were part of the sale price. The appeal of the Revenue on that ground before the Tribunal was, therefore, erroneous. It is clearly a case of non-application of mind. The Revenue authorities should be more careful while filing appeals before the Tribunal and not to indulge in purposeless exercises. D.M. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
-
1992 (9) TMI 347 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rks contract for work and labour and that the supply of material was merely incidental to the execution of the said works contract and that no contract of sale of chattel qua chattel could be inferred from the transactions of the assessee. On that view we are of the opinion that the factual findings rendered by the Tribunal could not be said to suffer any patent error of law or perversity of approach warranting interference by us in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The contention for the Revenue, therefore, fails and consequently T.C.(R) No. 156 of 1983 shall stand dismissed. 11.. Since we have sustained the order of the Tribunal and its findings that the transactions of the respondents-assessee were not exigible to sales tax under the Act, the question of penalty does not arise for consideration and on that ground alone T.C.(R) No. 157 of 1983 shall stand dismissed. But, in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs, in both the cases. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 346 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n accordance with law. The respondent No. 4, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, is directed to dispose of that application and any other application for renewal, if filed by the applicant, in accordance with law and in terms of this judgment. The applicant will be at liberty to apply for renewal of eligibility certificate, if so advised, from April 1, 1991, onwards within six weeks from today. Respondent No. 4, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, is directed to dispose of the application for renewal for the period from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, within three months from today and to dispose of further applications for renewal, if any, within three months from the date of filing thereof. Respondent No. 5, Commercial Tax Officer, is directed to dispose of applications for declaration forms in accordance with law and in terms of this judgment. The main application is, thus, disposed of. No order is made for costs. P.C. Banerji (Technical Member).-I agree.
-
1992 (9) TMI 345 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ct, 1941. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Midnapur Circle, respondent No. 2, is directed to dispose within three months from this date of the appeal which has been preferred by the applicant against the assessment order dated February 6, 1992 for the period of four quarters ending 15th K.B. 2045. While disposing of the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner will apply the decision in the case of Sama Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1995 97 STC 594 (WBTT) (1991) 24 STA 170 (WBTT) regarding exigibility of turnover tax on sales exempt under rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The applicant will be at liberty to make fresh applications before respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Midnapur Charge, for issuance of declaration forms and permits. As and when such applications are received, respondent No. 1 will dispose them of in accordance with law. The main application is thus disposed of without any order for costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
........
|
