|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 274 Records
-
1989 (1) TMI 327 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Babu Ram Mohan Lal, Deoria 1987 UPTC 317 and an another single judge decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Liberty Shoes Store, Jawahar Gate, Ghaziabad 1987 STD (High Court), 105, I find that if the goods in stocks as on 1st May, 1979 not already taxed prior to that date, they would be liable to tax under section 3-D(2) of the Sales Tax Act. I find that there is no error of law committed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sri Ram Raghunath Prasad 1984 UPTC 989 relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee has already been considered by a Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Babu Ram Mohan Lal, Deoria 1987 UPTC 317. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 326 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, no relief can be granted to the assessee in this regard. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is with regard to upholding the liability of the assessee for payment of interest as a dispute raised by the assessee in this regard was pending. He contended that in view of a decision of this Court in the case of Capital Packers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1989 75 STC 42 (1988) ATJ 990 the assessee is liable to pay interest only from the date of assessment and not from the date of submission of returns as contended by the department. Since this question regarding giving benefits in this regard has not been gone into by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the impugned order so far as this aspect is concerned is set aside with directions to rehear the appeal and record a finding in that regard. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part as per directions made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 325 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as old or new and whether that formed part of the machinery being employed in the unit, but the order of the Divisional Level Committee as communicated by the joint Director vide order dated 14th March 1988 (annexure 4) is liable to be set aside for the simple reason that both the inspections had been made, according to the respondents, after the termination of the exemption period. The decision of the Divisional Level Committee, being based on irrelevant considerations, deserves to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 21st March, 1987 and dated 14th March, 1988 of the Divisional Level Committee as communicated by the joint Director of Industries, are quashed. The notice dated 5th February, 1988 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector III, Bulandshahar, respondent No. 3 (annexure 10 to the writ petition) is also quashed and the Divisional Level Committee is directed to issue eligibility certificate at an early date. Writ petition allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 324 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... yet it was not correct in law in restoring the estimate of turnover as fixed by the Sales Tax Officer. The submission proceeds that the Tribunal has, in the impugned order, not stated any basis for confirming the estimate of turnover as made by the Sales Tax Officer. From a perusal of the impugned order, I, however, find that the Tribunal has, on this aspect of the matter, clearly stated in its order that there was a suppression of 400 quintals of rice in the two months of April and May, 1982 and that the Sales Tax Tribunal has also considered the fact that the business was done for the entire year. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal does not disclose any basis by confirming the estimate made by the Sales Tax Officer. This submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel for the assessee, has got no force. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of Devi Prasad Sunder Lal Khattri, Kannauj was the subject-matter of a revision in this Court and for the reasons mentioned in the said judgment dated 20th January, 1987 reported in 1987 UPTC 787, the said order of the Tribunal has been set aside for decision afresh. In these circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that it will be appropriate and proper to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Since the said order is being set aside, the other arguments pressed on behalf of the assessee regarding rejection of account books as well as liability of interest under section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act need not be gone into at this stage. In the result, all the three revisions succeed and are allowed with one set of costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). The impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with directions to redecide the appeals afresh in accordance with law. Petitions allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 322 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rder dated 30th August, 1984 and, therefore, the case could not be remanded back to the Sales Tax Officer for consideration of the application filed by the assessee under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. I am afraid that in this revision this point cannot be gone into because admittedly the department had not filed a second appeal against the said order dated 30th August, 1984 of the first appellate authority allowing the appeal of the assessee and making necessary rectification as prayed for by the assessee, against which it was open to the department to make the said contention. Therefore, this contention raised by the Standing Counsel has got no basis whatsoever in so far as the present case is concerned. On the facts of this case, in my opinion, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 321 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liable in so far as jaggery was concerned but no such provision was made in so far as other general goods are concerned. In such a case, in respect of other general goods, the principal would not be liable unless he sells goods above the prescribed limit, if so, the agent would also be not liable. The turnover of the agent comprising sales on behalf of several principals cannot be clubbed together and he cannot be made liable. We do not think that the words added in the definition are sufficient to bring about the said result. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the said turnover in a sum of Rs. 72,850.46 relating to general goods and representing the sales effected by the dealer as agent on behalf of several principals cannot be brought to tax inasmuch as the sale on behalf of each principal was below the prescribed limit. The tax revision case accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 320 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... learned Standing Counsel. From a perusal of the assessment record, it is amply clear that no notice as contemplated by the second proviso to sub-clause (7) of rule 41 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was given by the Sales Tax Officer. On these facts, therefore, and in view of the aforesaid legal obligation on the part of the Sales Tax Officer, the Sales Tax Officer could not have proceeded to reject the turnover of sales of the assessee. Therefore, all the orders passed by the three authorities below get vitiated in law and are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). The impugned orders passed by all the three authorities below are hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the Sales Tax Officer concerned to proceed in accordance with law after complying with the terms of the aforesaid second proviso to sub-clause (7) of rule 41 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 319 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve come to the conclusion that the sales tax department was not right in coming to the conclusion that the packing slips, in fact, are sales memos. The assessee has stated that the details mentioned in the packing slips were meant for the despatcher and need not tally with the sales memos. Both the appellate authorities below have considered the facts of this case as well as the packing slips in question and have recorded a finding of fact that the explanation furnished by the assessee is correct. In this situation the submission made by the Standing Counsel that the estimate as made by the Sales Tax Officer was a correct estimate is without any force. In my opinion, the appellate authorities below have fixed the estimate of turnover on the basis of appraisal of evidence which was before them and there is no error of law involved in the same. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 318 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee. In this circumstance also, in my opinion, the authorities below were not right in rejecting/affirming the rejection of account books of the two years in dispute. The impugned orders passed by the authorities below, therefore, suffer from an error of law and are liable to be set aside. As regards the estimate of turnover fixed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the two years in dispute having heard learned Standing Counsel, I find that the said fixation of turnover is based on relevant materials and there is no error of law in this regard in the impugned orders passed by the two appellate authorities below. In the result, the two revisions filed by the assessee as above succeed and are allowed and the account books of the assessee for the two years in dispute are hereby accepted, while the other two revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax as above fail and are dismissed. In these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions filed by assessee allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the materials on record and the explanation of the assessee furnished during the course of penalty proceedings recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its turnover. I also find that this finding has been recorded by the Tribunal independently of the findings arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel has in support of his submission also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of A.D. and Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1988 UPTC 1437, wherein finding of mala fide was recorded against the assessee and it was held that penalties had been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal. No other point was pressed. Thus, all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee fail. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Interim stay order dated 16th October, 1987, passed by this Court is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT
Whether that in the Import-Export Policy, 1982-83 the entitlement of Registered Export Houses to the facility of revalidation and endorsement of OGL items under paragraph 185(4) is subject to and conditioned upon the express limitation in clause (7) of paragraph 185 of the Policy and that the High Court was in error in directing revalidation and endorsement without reference to the mandatory prescription in clause (7)?
Whether that the High Court was in error in ignoring the contention of the appellants that respondents had rendered themselves disentitled to relief on ground of the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the writ-petitions?
Held that:- Para 185[4] was intended to provide certain incentives to the Export Houses which, upon grant of Imprest-Licences, fulfill their countervailing obligations in the matter of export commitments. Acceptance of the interpretation suggested by Shri Subba Rao would, in our opinion, unduly restrict the scope of the beneficial provision and, in many instances which would otherwise fall within the beneficial scope of the policy in para 185(4), take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. We think we should accept the submissions of Shri Harish Salve which is consistent with the view taken of the matter by the High Court in other cases and hold that the conditions in para 185(4) of the policy would not be attracted to the case of Export Houses which are granted Imprest Licences.
We think it would be somewhat unfA.I.R. for the respondents, who have succeeded in the High Court, to decide this question without an opportunity to them to satisfy the Court as to the reasons, if any, for the delay and as to the sufficiency of such reasons. Accordingly, the appellate-judgments of the High Court under appeal are set aside and the appeals 149 of 1987 and 179 of 1987 before the High Court are remitted for a fresh disposal as indicated above.
-
1989 (1) TMI 315 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there were breaches and non-performance of the covenants and conditions of the lease justifying the forfeiture of the lease, and that these matters, pertained to a private law situation and were not appropriately matters for enforcement of public law remedies?
Whether the purported forfeiture and cancellation of the lease were valid or not should not have been allowed to be agitated in proceedings under Article 226?
Held that:- The show cause notice itself an impalpable congeries of suspicions and fears, of relevant or irrelevant matter and has included some trivia. On a matter of such importance where the stakes are heavy for the Lessees who claim to have made large investments on the project and where a number of grounds require the determination of factual matters of some complexity, the statutory authority should, in the facts of this case, have afforded a personal heating to the lessees. Therefore, agree with the conclusion of the High Court that both the show cause notice dated 9-1.1986 and the subsequent order dated 19.4-1986 would require to be quashed, however, leaving it open to the statutory authority, should it consider it necessary, to issue a fresh show cause notice setting out the precise grounds, and afford a reasonable opportunity including an opportunity of personal heating and of adducing evidence wherever necessary to the Respondent-Lessees.
-
1989 (1) TMI 314 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the compensation determined under clause 2 is excluded from the scope of arbitration under clause 25?
Whether the contractor is responsible for the default?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Loss or damage which it may be open to the Government to lay against the contractor, not in terms of clause 2 but under the general law or under the Contract Act. As pointed out at the very outset so far as this case is concerned the claim of the Government has obviously proceeded in terms of clause 2 and that is the way in which both the single Judge as well as the Division Bench have also approached the question. Reading clauses 2 and 25 together we think that the conclusion is irresistible that the amount of compensation chargeable under clause 2 is a matter which has to be adjudicated in accordance with that clause and which cannot be referred to arbitration under clause 25.
-
1989 (1) TMI 313 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption from sales tax of certain goods for specified period denied - Held that:- Appeal allowed. That the denial of the exemption to the appellant under the notification dated September 30, 1982 was not justified. The rejection of the appellant's application in this regard is quashed and the appellant is declared entitled to the exemption in terms of the notification.
-
1989 (1) TMI 305 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Validity of service and of proceedings, Cost and expenses payable out of assets in a winding-up by Court
-
1989 (1) TMI 295 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Alternate director – Appointment –and term of officer of ... ... ... ... ..... cease to be a director on his not attending the board meetings for three months. The Indian Companies Act provides for service of notice on the director in India only. The plaintiff not being resident of India may not even get the notice of the board of directors. So, keeping all these facts in view, the interests of justice require that a temporary injunction should be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The question whether the power of attorney has been duly stamped would be decided later on because there is still time left for the plaintiff to get it stamped in India. I allow the application and direct the respondent to accept Mr. Brij Anand as alternate director in place of the plaintiff to enable him to attend the meetings of the board of directors of the defendant. This injunction shall continue till the disposal of the suit. Anything said in this judgment shall not prejudice the case of the parties which shall be decided on merits after the parties have led evidence.
-
1989 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... at High Court relied on by the learned advocate, this show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings relating thereto are required to be set aside. We order accordingly. 4. emsp The decision of this Tribunal reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 81 in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, as relied on by the learned S.D.R. is of no help to the Revenue. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, the Tribunal held that it was only on or after 22-12-1985 (the correct date is 27-12-1985) that notice ought to be issued by the Collector himself in cases where the longer period of limitation was to be pressed into service. In the pres- ent case, longer period of limitation has been invoked in issuing the show cause notice alleging suppression and mis-statement of facts. The appellants are not precluded from raising this point before us as this is purely a point of law. 5. emsp The show cause notice and the impugned order are set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... s it stood at the relevant time, I consider that the question involved here in this appeal is not one of filing the appeal in time against a valid order but the real question for consideration is whether there is a valid order which calls for an appeal to be filed against. The principle of law that an order of assessment is a quasi judicial order and has to conform to the principles of natural justice, has been accepted and therefore, any order in breach of such principles of natural justice is no order in the eye of law. The question of filing an appeal, therefore, does not arise. It is set aside only for the sake of convenience so that an appropriate order in accordance with the principles of natural justice can be passed afresh. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I remand the matter to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for de novo adjudication. FINAL ORDER In view of the order recorded by the majority of the Members who heard this appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... in admitting the additional evidence even before hearing the appeal rdquo . 4. The applicants have not taken sufficient care even to get the English translations from vernacular attested by an Official English Translator. The Tribunal does not have the original records with it and as such the Tribunal cannot appreciate whether the contentions made in the Miscellaneous Application are true and correct. It is an accepted practice in the legal system that both the sides support their additional contentions with necessary affidavits so that either party to an appeal or a proceeding may not try to mislead the Court. Accordingly, we are not inclined to accept the applicants rsquo request for admission of additional evidence at this stage. The applicants rsquo request for grant of permission for admission of additional evidence is rejected as unsubstantiated. If the applicants intend to move another application duly supported with an affidavit, they may do so in accordance with law.
........
|
