|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 382 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 390 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of 1989, in paragraph 4 of which in somewhat similar circumstances the Full Bench of this Tribunal had held that non-production of permit at the time of seizure could not be explained and, therefore, the seizure was valid in view of the infraction of law. Mr. Bhattacharjee, appearing for applicant perused the said judgment, but did not submit anything in that regard. In this case also, there was undoubtedly infraction of the law and the attempted explanation for nonproduction of permit at the time of seizure has not been substantiated. As regards the quantum of penalty, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that it may be reduced. After giving careful consideration to this aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no ground for reduction of the quantum of penalty. 11.. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 389 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... or otherwise of the evidence on the basis of which this finding of fact has been arrived at by the lower authorities, which also is not a point of reference. The reference jurisdiction of this Tribunal has a limited purpose. We have to answer specifically a particular question of law referred to us. While exercising reference jurisdiction this Tribunal cannot be used as a forum for revision of an order of a subordinate authority involving a question of fact. The scope of reference jurisdiction cannot be widened to cover all aspects of the order leading to the reference. This can be done only in revisional jurisdiction. The contention of the learned advocate for the applicant, therefore, is unacceptable. 17.. In view of the reasons given above, our reply to the question is in the affirmative and is against the applicant. The reference is disposed of accordingly. 18.. There will be no order for costs. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (11) TMI 388 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r that all the transactions of the petitioner fall under the intra-State sales. Therefore, we are governed only by the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The only claim for exemption could be under entry 31B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The matter directly came up for consideration in 1984 56 STC 190 (Kar) (Krishna Products v. State of Karnataka) and it was held by a Division Bench as follows Entry 31B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, means sugar and not any form of sugar or variety of sugar. Varieties of sugar may fall within the meaning of the word sugar , but not forms of sugar. Syrup is a form of sugar and therefore it does not fall within the meaning of the word sugar and is not exempt. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue the matter is no longer res integra. Consequently, we dismiss these writ petitions with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 to be paid to the State. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 387 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any place outside India or to any other State in India, such series be deemed to conclude at the stage of sale or purchase effected immediately before the export of such goods and brought to tax under the State Act. The learned single Judge rightly held that sections 5, 5A and 8 of the Act are legislations coming under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. We concur with the learned single Judge and hold that there is no merit in this writ appeal. It should be stated that when the decision in Keveyam and Co. case 1986 63 STC 387 (Ker) was rendered, no reliance was placed on section 8 of the Act moreover the explanation to section 2(xxvi) of the Act was in a different form. The non obstante clause was all pervasive. But, the section was amended by Act 6 of 1988, with effect from February 19, 1988. These aspects also deserve notice, in evaluating the plea of the petitioner. 6.. The writ appeal is without merit. It is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT
The Government order authorised the Inspector General of Police to investigate only the offences failing under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the SHO who has taken up the investigation of the offences inclusive of those under Section 161 and 165 IPC is not at all clothed with any authority to investigate these two offences, registered under the IPC, apart from the offence under Section 5(2) of the Act. However, as the question relating to the legal authority of the SHO is raised even at the initial stage, it would be proper and also desirable that the investigation, if at all to be proceeded with in the opinion of the State Government, should proceed only on the basis of a valid order in strict compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 5A(1).
-
1990 (11) TMI 385 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... agreement. In the circumstances the movement of goods should be deemed to have been occasioned by the sale itself. 19.. The goods moved in pursuance to the terms of the agreement from the seller in Kerala to the buyer in Calcutta. The movement of the goods from Kerala to West Bengal forms a clear stipulation or is incident of the agreement to sell. The agreement also provides that there has been a transfer of property from the seller to the buyer. In view of these circumstances there can be no manner of doubt that the sale falls squarely within section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and since the goods moved from the State of Kerala it is that State alone which is competent to levy the tax under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. 20.. We agree with the view of the Tribunal that the transactions are inter-State in character. On both the points no ground exists for interference in revision. In the result these tax revision petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 384 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en questioned. The scrutiny of the entire writ petition leads us to an unmistakable conclusion that the challenge to the vires of the provisions was made in the writ petition without any justification and only casually. It appears to have been made after the appellants were unsuccessful both before the appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal. Having filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and second appeals before the Tribunal questioning the merits of the assessment and levy of penalty, the appellants have only tried to prolong the litigation by filing the writ petition and questioning, without laying down foundation or basis, the vires of section 19A of the Act and rule 52(2) of the Rule. The challenge to both the provisions is unfounded and we reject it. 5.. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ appeal fails and is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rned counsel is again well-founded in his contention that the Revenue cannot take a different stand. Viewed from any angle, we are of the view that the bearings sold by the assessee will fall only under entry 111 of the First Schedule, and the contrary view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader placing reliance on 1976 38 STC 118 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Sha Maggajee Saremal and Brothers), as already pointed out, is of no avail. Though the argument that circulars have no binding force on the Tribunal and the courts is a correct proposition of law, that does not mean, the court is precluded from looking into the clarification or taking cue from such clarification. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned Additional Government Pleader that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 10.. In the result, the tax case is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 382 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l the argument that the impugned notifications violate article 14 of the Constitution. It is relevant in this context to refer to the decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1986 63 STC 274, wherein the concession extended only to the products of a local industry was upheld. There is also one more aspect which we would like to advert before we conclude. By declaring the notifications issued in the years 1981 and 1984 at this distance of time, we will perhaps be facilitating unjust enrichment by the assessee. There is no knowing whether during this interregnum the petitioner had passed on and collected the tax from the customers. The reasonable presumption is that it would have so collected. If so, the discretionary relief under article 226 need not be granted to the petitioner, even assuming that the notifications are bad in law. We therefore dismiss the writ petition, but without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 381 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the preceding month, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. By section 13-B of the Act banks can be called upon to furnish certain information in relation to a dealer and in relation to a particular assessment. The Commercial Tax Officer has no blanket jurisdiction to pass an order of the type he has passed herein. If section 13-B of the Act in conjunction with rule 56-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, is read and understood in this manner, it does not appear to be an unreasonable legislation violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order does not refer to any dealer whatsoever. In any case, how would the bank know who are all the dealers within the meaning of the Act. We are thus constrained to quash the impugned order dated May 28, 1987, as being violative of section 13-B itself, and the same is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ellant deserves an opportunity to produce the E1 and C forms for the purpose of verification and fresh orders on the basis of verification. No objection can be taken to such exercise of discretion by an authority vested with judicial power. All that should concern any judicial or quasi-judicial authority is the requirement of justice and effective justice. No one can suggest that if certain concessions or exemptions were likely to be made available to the taxpayer on the basis of the E1 and C forms, only because they were not produced by him before the assessing officer for no apparently explainable cause, the judicial or quasi-judicial authority should reject production of any such document at a later stage. Such concern for justice should be appreciated than condemned. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had such discretion and it committed no error in exercising the same. There is no merit in the petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 379 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... g the requirements and making declaration before the authorities under the Act and getting an endorsement from them on the consignment note, railway receipt, air note, etc. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner was illegal and without jurisdiction. We have already held that even if proceedings were to be held to be valid, the imposition of composition money and forcible realisation thereof was also illegal. We, therefore, set aside and quash the impugned orders passed by the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner of Taxes and direct the respondents to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 30,000 which was realised from him by way of composition money and sales tax, within two months from today. In the result, this petition is allowed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner by way of costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 378 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act, the assessment order is not liable to be sustained. We accordingly quash the assessment order, a copy whereof is annexure 3 to the writ petition, to the extent it brings to tax the turnover of sales in respect whereof the second petitioner acted as a selling agent of the first petitioner. Normally, in the circumstances as obtaining in the instant case, a direction should have been issued to the assessing authority to frame a fresh assessment order after recording a proper finding and in accordance with law. However, having regard to the fact that the impugned assessment relates to assessment year 1976-77 and a period of over 13 years has already gone by and in particular the tax in dispute is a small amount of Rs. 274 only, we do not think it to be a fit case in which such direction be issued for a fresh assessment. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 377 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he absence of prerequisites to invoke section 17(3) or 19B of the Act, to hold that the purchases of the assessees were undervalued with a view to lessening tax liability, we are not pronouncing on the various other pleas that were urged before us. 17.. The tax revision cases are allowed. The common order of the Tribunal dated 1st December, 1989, is set aside. A few other points, other than those based on section 17(3) or section 19B of the Act, were also argued. We have annulled the common order of the Appellate Tribunal on the major issues. Some aspects stressed therein, have impact on the other points. So, we leave open the other points raised in the revisions and remit these cases to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, to consider afresh the appeals and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law and in the light of our findings and observations herein. A direction is issued in these cases to that effect. It shall be so done within three months from today. Petitions allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 376 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of the process, namely, masticated rubber, retained its original identity as rubber. Masticated rubber cannot be held to be a product of rubber. The fact that it is known as masticated rubber or mixed compound is not relevant for the aforesaid determination. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that masticated rubber is a form of rubber and not a rubber product and, as such, it is not covered by item 41 of the Schedule of taxable goods attached to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, which provides for levy of tax only on rubber product and not on rubber , and, therefore, sales thereof are not taxable under the Act. In the result, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of assessment and the notices of demand. We direct the Superintendent of Taxes to make a fresh assessment excluding the turnover of masticated rubber from the taxable turnover of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 375 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... king the aid of such units which are engaged in particular jobs, would not in any way take away the right of the assessee who can claim benefit under section 5CC. If the Legislature had intended that all processes culminating in the manufacture of goods are to be performed by the assessee himself, the Legislature would have so expressed in the provision itself. The Legislature felt contented with the provision that the raw material should be purchased for the manufacture of goods for sale. It cannot be said that the raw material is not purchased for the manufacture of goods for sale within the State, etc. In my opinion, therefore, this contention of the department that section 5CC envisages that the entire process of manufacture should be completed by the assessee himself is devoid of any force. In this view of the matter the view taken by the Tribunal calls for no interference. In the result, this revision petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 374 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of the book, An Introduction to Law , published in the series Law in context , comments after noting the above view of Sunkin, thus Sunkin s study suggests that the courts are not particularly effective in imposing limits on administrative action through the procedure of judicial review................... 42.. Perhaps, Griffith was more caustic in his comment on judicial forces at work behind the scenes. Adverting to an attitude that everything was at the discretion of the administrator , he made what is described as acerbic remarks This nonsense, screaming its absurdities to heaven, was received with respectful, even smug, acceptance by His Majesty s judges. Respectful because they agreed with it. Smug because they were largely responsible for it............ The criticism and caution should not go unnoticed by a constitutional court. When arbitrariness is writ large, there is a clear enough duty for the court to act. We have endeavoured to do so. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 373 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nge of their identity as such goods, are merely subjected to some processing or finishing or are merely joined together, they may remain commercially the goods which cannot be taxed again, in a series of sales, so long as they retain their identity as goods of a particular type. There is no dispute that electric motor and grinder, two different commercial goods were joined together by the assessee. The Tribunal has said that there being no in-built electric motor in the grinder, it could not be identified as an electrical appliance. We have no reason to differ with the said finding. Our observation, however, should not mean that in cases where materials become available to show that such a combination of electrical motor and grinder creates a new commodity altogether shall also not be taxed when sold by any person, who by creating such a new commodity sought or seeks exemption. The tax revision case carries no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 372 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... . Binny Ltd. 1982 49 STC 17 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. 1973 31 STC 426. It was held in these cases that any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, the main business would constitute business even though the transaction by itself may not have the characteristics of business as understood in ordinary parlance . In other words, the ingredients of business, frequency, etc., mentioned in Ansari s case 1976 38 STC 577 (SC) would not be necessary. 26.. We agree with the learned State Representative and hold that the selling of shade trees is ancillary or incidental to the main business of the applicant, viz., selling of tea and that the applicant is carrying on business in terms of section 2(1a)(ii) of the Act. 27.. In the premises, the application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 371 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... TC 556 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram). But though 1974 33 STC 556 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram) generally deals with both white cement and refractory cement , it actually discussed only about white cement and not refractory material. So 1974 33 STC 556 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mango Mal Nanak Ram) cannot be relied on, with reference to the refractory materials of the assessees in the present case. Therefore, these revision petitions are allowed in favour of the assessees and the orders of the authorities below including the Tribunal are modified, holding that the above referred to disputed turnovers are exigible to tax only at multi-point rate under section 3(1) of the Act in the respective assessment years in question and not under single point rate as per item 34 of the First Schedule to the Act read with section 3(2) of the Act. However in the circumstances of the case, no costs. Revision petition allowed.
........
|
