|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 266 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 278 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wrongly and the collection is not open to be appropriated as profit by the assessee under the statute. The requirement of statute never ceased. It is still in operation as is evident from the direction issued by the Cane Commissioner. The facts of the case are so straight forward that it can be said that the conclusion is quite easy. It is not the case of the revenue that the Ordinance had lapsed and ceased to be in operation nor is it controverted that there was no direction from the statutory authorities to earmark the collection by way of commission for the Cane Council in the shape of Savings Certificates in its favour. That being so, we find hardly any room for controversy as to non-assessability of the collection of the commission, notwithstanding the assessee's act in writing it back to the profit. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reunder as also the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of documents and filing of the list of witnesses etc. were not kept in view and the trial was conducted in a very causal manner. We were informed during the course of the arguments, by learned counsel for both sides that the High Court has not framed any Rule for trial of the election petitions. We are surprised. If that be so, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to look into it and frame Rules for proper trial of election petitions. 58. The result of our above discussion is that the judgment of the High Court declaring the election of the appellant from Gulbarga Assembly Constituency to be void cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed and as a consequence the election petition filed by Respondent No.l in the High Court is dismissed. The appellant shall be entitled to costs which are assessed at ₹ 10,000 payable by the election petitioner-Respondent No.l.
-
1994 (1) TMI 276 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d, Section 47-A being local amendment, made by each State Legislature did not find any such statutory basis. Like A.P. Act, Tamil Nadu Act is also referable to transactions intra vivos and not as general guidelines. If they are based on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with Section 47-A. Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbour’s lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court. The State did not file any appeal against the award of the reference court which
-
1994 (1) TMI 275 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances whatsoever in the case. We agree that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life is required to be kept in mind by the courts while considering the confirmation of the sentence of death but a cold blooded pre-planned brutal murder, without any provocation, after committing rape on an innocent and defenceless young girl of 18 years, by the security guard certainly makes this case a 'rare of the rarest' cases which calls for no punishment other than the capital punishment and we accordingly confirm the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, The order of sentence imposed on the appellant by the courts below for offences under Section 376 and 380 IPC are also confirmed alongwith the directions relating thereto as in the event of the execution of the appellant, those sentences would only remain of academic interest. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nation of the service of the appellant during the period of probation is in terms of the order of appointment read with I Regulation 14 of the Regulations, which shall be deemed to be now Rules under Section 48(2)(cc) of the Corporation Act. 15. Even under general law, the service of a probationer can be terminated after making an overall assessment of his performance during the period of probation and no notice is required to be given before termination of such service. This aspect has been examined by this Court in the case of The Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore v. Dr Pandurang Godwalka8 where it has been pointed out that if the performance of the employee concerned during the period of probation is not found to be satisfactory on overall assessment, then it is open to the competent authority to terminate his service. 16. Accordingly, the appeal falls. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t;, to borrow the language of Beg, J. as used in Madan Mohan Pathak case2 which has rendered the section invalid in the eye of law. The only purpose of impugned provision being 19 AIR 1968 SC 647 (1968) 2 SCR 154 (1970) 1 LLJ 662 20 (1990) 3 SCC 682 1991 SCC (LandS) 71 21 (1988) 2 All ER 577 to set aside the inter partes decision rendered in Devi Match Factory case1 the legislature exercised judicial power which it could not have done as held by the Constitution Bench in Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case5. 36. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I hold that Section 52 of Finance Act, 1982 is invalid. I would, therefore, allow the appeals but would make no order as to costs. ORDER 37. Having regard to the importance of the question raised herein, we direct these matters to be placed before a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges. At the same time, we have recorded two points of view in our two opinions so that the Bench hearing the matters may have the benefit of our views.
-
1994 (1) TMI 271 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... taking into consideration the hardships caused to a certain set of taxpayers gives them a certain concession it does not mean that that action is bad as another set of taxpayers similarly situated may not have been given a similar concession. It would not be proper to strike down the provision of law giving concession to the former on the ground that the latter are not given such concession. Nor is it possible for this Court to direct that the latter set should be given a similar concession. That would mean legislation by this Court and this Court has no legislative powers. (para 5) (page Nos. 9 and 10 of STC). For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that neither article 14 nor article 301 of the constitution comes to the rescue of the petitioner. Also, no case is made out by the petitioner for grant of any relief on any other ground. The result is that this writ petition must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ant the stay and he will also be free to grant stay in part and in that case in respect of the amount for which stay is not granted the three ingredients mentioned above will be required to be recorded in the order. Learned counsel for the respondents raised objection that the writ petition is not maintainable since the appeal is pending, but I am of the view that the writ petition could be entertained only with regard to the legality of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and the matter on merits which is pending before the appellate authority cannot be considered even in writ jurisdiction in such a situation. No coercive steps should be taken for the recovery of the amount till February 3, 1994. There would be no necessity to issue notice to the petitioner for hearing before the Additional Commissioner on February 3, 1994. 8.. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of in accordance with the directions given above. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 269 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... This contention is not wholly correct. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act only places certain restrictions on the rate of tax and the stages of tax and the State law cannot place a larger burden on the tax-payers, but the categorisation of the commodity concerned under the State law is relevant for determining the category under which the commodity falls. If under the State law, the rate of tax for that commodity is lower than four per cent, then the lower rate will have to be charged. If the State law levies tax at several stages of sales then in terms of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, in respect of declared goods, tax will have to be restricted only to one stage. The classification of goods under the State law, therefore, is not always irrelevant. No other point was pressed in these revisions. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no force in these revisions and the same are hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 268 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was moved for rectification of the order wherein the rectification application was accepted and the judgment of the Tribunal dated April 25, 1988, was recalled. The arguments of both the learned counsel were heard afresh by the Tribunal and, in view of the fact that the provisions of rule 62A were declared ultra vires by the single Bench, which judgment was subsequently set aside and certain amendments were made in the Rules, the Tribunal observed that the assessee has sufficient cause, not to submit declaration form and the penalty was set aside. The question whether there was a sufficient cause or not, is a question of fact and the Tribunal being satisfied that there were sufficient reasons for not submitting the declaration form inviting the penal consequences is not a matter where the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised by this Court. The order passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. The revision has no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 267 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icates in form III-A have not been furnished. The contention that it should be so presumed in the hands of the persons who sold the goods to the revisionist is not acceptable because it is not shown from whom the goods were purchased and whether they were sold in the same form or after conversion into other commodity like wire, etc. Patently the assessee has got wires manufactured and must have purchased raw materials in another form from its seller. In the absence of any material to show that any part of the turnover of Rs. 21,00,000 represented the sale of the same commodity which the dealer purchased from its seller, the benefit of the ratio in the case of Riyasat Husain Hide Co. v. Sales Tax Officer 1970 UPTC 467 could not be given to the assessee. No other point argued in this revision. For the reasons discussed above, I find that the Tribunal has committed no error of law in upholding the assessment. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 266 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd thus declined to reopen the assessments made earlier. It is on the basis of this order that once again petitioner with a view to settle some undisclosed dispute between him and the respondents have made this as a media to harass private respondents. Initiation of the present proceedings is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of the court. For no legitimate reason, petitioner has not only been able to harass the private respondents but as well as put them to financial loss. Even the State machinery has been put to great inconvenience as it was also called upon to file reply to the petition, in view of the specific assertion made by the petitioner accusing them of complicity. Since the petition has been found to be wholly devoid of merit, rather frivolous, it is a fit case where the petitioner be burdened with exemplary costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000. This amount will be shared equally between the respondent-State and M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath-respondent No. 2.
-
1994 (1) TMI 265 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e basis of material on record or on some reasonable principle. Turnover is to be arrived at taking into account the purchases or sales made, which may be determined from the records either seized or found in the possession of the assessee. Arriving at a random figure without there being any basis of the same is not at all justified in tax law. In the circumstances, the amount of Rs. 73,972.26 determined by the Tribunal as the taxable turnover of the assessee cannot be said to be assessment based on best judgment and is unjustified. In the result the revision succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to make a consequential order regarding tax liability of the applicant after reducing the sum of Rs. 1,50,735.30 which is theka money from the said turnover. The profit and tax on tax shall also be accordingly reduced. A certified copy of this order may be made available to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 264 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... td. v. State of Rajasthan 1980 45 STC 128. As we have already mentioned, the question of applying those principles arises only after the registering authority passes an order and not at the stage of issuing the show cause notice. In the case referred to above, the validity of an order passed by the registering authority fell for consideration. The question of applying the principles laid down in that decision does not arise in the present cases which are directed against show cause notices. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to admit the writ petitions. The petitioners shall file their objections to the show cause notices within one week from today, if not already filed. The registering authority shall consider the objections if any filed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, the writ petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 263 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. In doing so, respondent No. 1 will follow the observations made in course of this judgment. In other words, if he finds that the wires which were sold, had been manufactured out of wire rods for which tax had been paid within the State of West Bengal at an earlier sale, he will allow the claim of deduction under section 5(2)(a)(va) of the 1941 Act. But if he finds that some wires which were sold by the applicant, had been manufactured out of rods other than wire rods, in that case he will disallow the applicant s claim of deduction under section 5(2)(a)(va) of the 1941 Act to that extent and levy sales tax on such sales under the 1941 Act read with section 15(a) of the 1956 Act. There will be no order for costs. Let the operation of the judgment and order be stayed for six weeks, as prayed for by the learned State Representative, though stay is opposed. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member)-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 262 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... treated as notice requiring the petitioner to show cause against a proposal to rectify the mistake in the assessment order for the year 1987-88 so as to reduce the amount of refund due to the petitioner by enhancing the assessment as also for the purpose of ordering, forfeiture of excess amount which is alleged to have been collected towards tax or amount collected towards tax in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Treating the above order as a notice for these twin purposes, the petitioner shall submit his explanation within a period not exceeding two weeks from today. The first respondent may pass appropriate orders strictly in compliance of the statute. He shall do so as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Petition disposed of accordingly. Special leave against this judgment was granted to the State by the Supreme Court on September 24, 1993 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14786 of 1993 See 1993 91 STC FRSC 12, SI. No. 31.
-
1994 (1) TMI 261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was observed that the account books cannot be rejected for non-filing of inventory of opening stock and omission to strike the totals. In my view it cannot be laid down as a rule of law as to in what circumstances the books of account can be rejected. It is basically a question of fact to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case the three assessment orders and three appellate orders have been passed and none of the authorities ever accepted the books of account. On this point there are concurrent findings by the assessing officer, the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Tribunal. Therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, no justification is made out for interfering with the rejection of the books of account and the assessment of turnover. In my view, therefore, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal and this revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 260 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the transportation charges were includible in the turnover of the petitioner. (2) The Tribunal was not right in holding that the sales were deemed to have taken place at the buyer s place and as such the transportation charges formed part of the petitioner s turnover. (3) The Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the freight charges were incurred before the sale was concluded. (4) The order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. 18.. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated April 29, 1988, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. No. 985 of 1986, confirming the order dated July 9, 1986, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Mangalore Division, Mangalore, in SMR. No. 108/85-86(MI), is set aside and the order dated January 21, 1986, passed by the assessing authority-Commercial Tax Officer, III Circle, Mangalore, for the assessment year 1981-82 is restored. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 259 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titioner s contention that Ex. P2 had not been implemented, which does not appear to be correct having regard to what is stated in the statement filed by the Government Pleader on January 11, 1994 the only effect thereof will be to reduce the total amount payable by an amount of less than Rs. 2,200. But what the petitioner did was to get a stay of recovery of over Rs. 53,000 subject only to payment of Rs. 20,000. That is why I said that this is a clear case of abuse of the process of the court which requires stringent action from this Court. This is a case where the conduct of the petitioner is totally lacking in bona fides for which he has to be penalised with heavy costs. 6.. Accordingly I dismiss the original petition. Petitioner will pay an amount of Rs. 2,500 by way of costs to the respondents. The respondents will proceed forthwith for recovering the balance amount due from the petitioner as per Ex. P5 as also the amount of costs ordered to be paid. Petition dismissed.
........
|
