|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 491 Records
-
2002 (10) TMI 780 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... g, trimming, polishing and other processes on the marble slabs amount to a process of manufacture as it does not bring in a distinct product. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (10) TMI 779 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 778 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... 306/22/97-CX, dated 20th March, 1997. Learned Attorney General after examining the same today has conceded that the Circular covers the facts of these cases against the Revenue. Therefore, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. C.A. No. 4225/2001 In view of the order passed in C.A. Nos. 3709-3710/2000 etc. and relying upon the above noted Circular the appeal of the assessee is allowed. No costs.
-
2002 (10) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earing for the respondents, however, contended before us that there are several other grounds which are required to be examined and since the impugned judgment proceeded because of invalidity of the Section 17(4) of the Act, in Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College case and the said judgment of the High Court having been reversed by this Court the matter should be remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration of other grounds. We are not in a position to appreciate as to what other grounds are to be urged. However, since the impugned judgment proceeds because of Section 17(4) of the Act having been struck down, and the judgment of the High Court in Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra teachers college case having been reversed by us, we set aside the impugned judgment in each of the appeals and allow the Civil Appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan. We, however, remit the Writ Petitions back to the High Court for being considered if any other point survives for consideration.
-
2002 (10) TMI 776 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 775 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n, as also the evidence of PW 9 who was the officer in charge of the malkhana and from their evidence, we find that it is not possible to hold that the seal allegedly put by PW 7 while taking the sample opium remained intact right through the time it reached the forensic science laboratory. This being a mandatory requirement to establish the fact that the seized goods was in fact a prohibited drug under the NDPS Act, we agree with the High Court on facts of this case that the prosecution has failed to establish this part of its case, hence, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the same.
-
2002 (10) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t in accordance with law and therefore should not be regarded as a precedent. This Court has ample jurisdiction to pass orders under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution which may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter. But even in exercising this power, it is more than doubtful that an order can be passed contrary to law. In V.K. Sharma’s case, this Court did not purport to exercise any jurisdiction under Article 142. The decision to direct the applicant to file applications to be moved for consolidations of the cases pending in different Courts for different offences to be tried in a single’ court was not in accordance with law, and the said decision of V.K. Sharma and that of P.K. Sharma are over-ruled. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court is set aside. We make it clear that any observations made in this order shall not prejudice the respondent in the trial of the cases against him.
-
2002 (10) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ilarly for the Narcotic drugs also, for its identification, procedure under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be followed of recording evidence and disposal. Its identity could be on the basis of evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Samples also should be sent immediately to the Chemical Analyser so that subsequently, a contention may not be raised that the article which was seized was not the same. However these powers are to be exercised by the concerned Magistrate. We hope and trust that the concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. This object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly. Adjourned for three weeks.
-
2002 (10) TMI 772 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... paid by the consumers in such manner as it thinks appropriate. The Commission shall also condone the delay in filing the application for tariff fixation for the year 2002-03 and fix the tariff in accordance with law for the said year. We must make it clear that though we have heard many appellants, some of whom have not even appeared before the Commission or the High Court, this does not ipso facto confer a right of representation on them in the future proceedings either before the Commission or the High Court. Their right to take part in such proceedings, be it the Commission or the High Court shall be dependent on them being permitted by the Commission or the High Court as per the Regulations framed by the Commission. For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed to the extent mentioned hereinabove and the same are allowed to that extent. The matter will now stand remitted to the West Bengal State Electricity Regulatory Commission for disposal in accordance with law.
-
2002 (10) TMI 771 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s proved by the party claiming it. In fact evidence of financial arrangement under the Explanation referred to above also would have helped the petitioner to establish the transaction as an agency. The petitioner did not prove this either. Therefore, I feel the transaction being unaccounted purchase and sale penalty was rightly levied. The petitioner 39 s claim of agency as well as inter-State sale stand disproved. However, in the absence of any positive case of evasion, I feel levy of penalty equal to the amount of tax will serve the ends of justice. The penalty imposed is therefore reduced to 50 per cent. The petitioner is stated to have paid an amount of Rs. 25,000 under exhibit P9 order of this Court during the pendency of this petition. The petitioner shall pay the balance amount with applicable interest within one month from today. The original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 34222 of 2000 in O.P. No. 20422 of 2000 dismissed. Petition disposed of.
-
2002 (10) TMI 770 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner with reference to the tax paid along with the returns till the date of inspection and if the tax evaded till then is less than Rs. 1 lakh, he will refund the excess compounding fee collected over the tax for both the years. If the tax sought to be evaded as on the date of inspection is higher than the compounding fee, then ofcourse no modification is called for as maximum compounding fee is already charged. 4.. Though the petitioner has filed a petition for amendment and the same is allowed, there is no need for this Court to go into the petitioner 39 s claim for assessment as works contract because this is a matter which the assessing officer will have to consider with reference to the admission made by the petitioner in the compounding application and also the nature of transactions proved by the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 61216 of 2000 in O.P. No. 35916 of 2000 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (10) TMI 769 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is right. Though the matter ends there, since the Government Pleader has raised a submission based on the first proviso to section 5(3) of the Act, we will only say that the provisions of the first proviso refer to the payability of tax. The declaration form clearly mentions about the liability to tax and in such a situation, in view of the specific provision in section 5(3)(ii) which only refers to the declaration furnished and its non-compliance, we have to go by the wording of the declaration only and in that view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to consider the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Vattukalam Chemicals Industries 39 case 2001 124 STC 233, relied on by the revision petitioner, for, it turns on the peculiar facts of that case. There is no merit in this T.R.C. and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Reported as Greenex polymers v. State of Kerala 2003 130 STC 184 (Ker).
-
2002 (10) TMI 768 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... issue forms to the appellant and further he also submitted that under the Act and Rules, taxable amount has to be withheld by respondents 2 to 7 and hence, instead of approaching the appellant, the authorities can approach those people for payment of tax. 9.. After hearing both sides, we dispose of the writ appeals as follows The appellant wants forms under the notification, S.R.O. No. 1728/93. We are of the view that the approach of respondents 5 to 7 is not correct. If what the appellant says is correct, the appellant will be entitled to reduced rate of tax, if sale is made. Hence, we direct respondents 5 to 7 to issue necessary forms as per S.R.O. No. 1728/ 93. So far as the deduction of tax is concerned, the amounts are with respondents 5 to 7 and they are liable under the Act. The assessing authority can take steps for the payment of tax. Writ appeals are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 3841 of 2002 in W.A. No. 1503 of 2002 dismissed. Writ appeals disposed of.
-
2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ied the penalty in the manner indicated in D-3 proposal. It is well-settled that the assessing officer is a quasi-judicial authority and in exercising his quasi-judicial function of completing the assessment, he is not bound by the instructions or directions of the higher authorities. We find that in both the matters the assessing officer has acted on the basis of the directions of his higher authority in completing the assessments. We hold that the assessments are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the orders of assessment in both the matters are liable to be quashed and consequently, the orders of the Special Tribunal confirming the orders of assessment are also liable to be quashed. However, it is open to the assessing officer, viz., the first respondent herein, to pass orders of assessment afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Both the writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 766 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of the view that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce all the materials to show that the entire purchase of raw materials are used in the execution of job-work. In other words, the assessee has to produce evidence regarding the contract between the assessee and the customers in the form of work orders. For the said purpose, we set aside the orders of the assessing authority and the two appellate authorities and direct the assessing authority to consider the matter keeping in mind the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the year 1993-94 also. The assessee is free to produce all records in support of its contention regarding exemption under the notification. Since this matter relates to the assessment year 1991-92, the assessing authority is directed to pass the orders as directed hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of.
-
2002 (10) TMI 765 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l that was before it. The scope of the appeal before the Special Tribunal was limited to the question regarding the applicability of the rate of tax only. We are of the view that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the turnover was liable to be taxed at all as a works contract. The Special Tribunal was not correct in law in following the decision rendered in Dhayanidhi Press case 1999 112 STC 379, (a case on works contract) to hold that the assessee is not liable to be taxed. 6.. Consequently, we hold that the order of the Special Tribunal is not legally sustainable, and accordingly it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Special Tribunal, and the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal is directed to consider the question regarding the rate of tax after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 764 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Karnataka, being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in public interest, hereby directs that with effect from 1st day of April, 1984, no tax shall be payable under the said Act, in respect of sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of arecanut provided that the arecanut so sold has already been subjected to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957). For having benefit of the above notification, it was for the petitioners to prove that the arecanuts sold in the inter-State trade or commerce had already been subjected to tax under the KST Act. As noticed above, the stocks of arecanuts in question were never subjected to tax under the State Act entitling the petitioners to have benefit of exemption of tax. 5.. So, in our view, on facts, the authorities and the Tribunal have properly decided the matter and we see no error of law committed by any authority or Tribunal. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 763 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n of his lands where the High Court relying upon the decision in another case in a petition filed at the instance of some other persons had struck down the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by which the lands of those persons as well as that of the petitioner were acquired. The petitioners claim for higher compensation was already granted by the District Court against which an appeal was pending in the High Court. As regards the writ petition filed after nine years, it was held that the petitioner had acquiesced in the acquisition of his land and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. Applying the aforesaid ratio laid down by the apex Court to the facts of the present case it has to be held that, since the assessment orders have attained finality, the petitioners cannot obtain refund of tax paid under the assessment order. In the result, all the petitions are dismissed. Rules stand discharged with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (10) TMI 762 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 4 and if so how much and against which transaction or/and arrangement and whether such arrangement is real and genuine? 8.. It is on these issues, the parties, i.e., petitioner will lead evidence so too the respondent No. 4 to satisfy the authority that what is the actual bargain inter se parties. If necessary, parties may file any more documents as also lead oral evidence. The respondent No. 3 will then pass a reasoned order on the basis of material brought on record and record his satisfaction. Let this enquiry be completed within one month. Parties to remain present before respondent No. 3 on October 31, 2002. In the meantime the attachment of the goods, then of the goods will continue. However, in case, either of the parties wish to release the attachment, the same can be done by furnishing bank guarantee in favour of respondent No. 3 to the extent of the value of the attached goods. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (10) TMI 761 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appellate order. Counsel submits that the appellant had specifically raised a ground in the appeal memorandum regarding the above. But, the Tribunal did not advert to the said issue or contention or deal with it while disposing of the said appeal. We have perused the grounds of appeal. We find that ground No. 5 in annexure C relates to the same. We also do not find from the appellate order that the Tribunal has adverted to the said contention. In the above circumstances, if as a matter of fact, the assessee had argued the said question before the Tribunal, it is for the assessee to file appropriate petition for review of the order of the Tribunal on that ground for which this judgment will not stand in its way. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has applied for exemption from payment of sales tax under the notification, which has also not been considered. This question is also left open. The tax revision case is dismissed with the above observation. Petition dismissed.
........
|
