|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 774 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 . The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 773 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 772 - CEGAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... confirmed on the ground that as per provisions of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, the credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, cannot be used for payment of Additional Duty of Excise under Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. 5. We find that this issue is now settled by the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, reported in 2002 (52) RLT 734. In the above mentioned decision, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of Section 57AB, which are also applicable to the period in dispute in the present appeals, held that the credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, can be utilised for payment of Additional Duty of Excise under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. Pronounced in Court.
-
2002 (11) TMI 771 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 770 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... instance of the State also points out that the State proceeded on the premise that Mangal Singh had the right title in relation to the land in question and as he died intestate without leaving behind him any legal heir/representative, the same vested in the State. The appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, was allotted the land in question admittedly on the aforementioned premise, namely, Mangal Singh at the time of his death had title to the land in question or the suit property, but he died intestate. He, therefore, cannot be permitted to prevaricate from his stand at this stage. We are, further, of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, even it be held that the High Court had committed some irregularities in withdrawing the suit and disposing the same. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 769 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reed on payment of the entire remaining sale consideration i.e. ₹ 5,000/- by the plaintiff. However, suit of the plaintiff regarding sale of 1/4 share by the defendant in the land measuring 11 marlas and the building constructed thereon, while is Joint Hindu Family property, is dismissed. The suit regarding specific performance of agreement Ex.P2 pertainingto the sale of 1/8 share in the machinery installed in the ice factory is also decreed on payment of the remailing sale consideration of ₹ 11,000/- by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant is di rected to deposit the remaining sale consideration of both the agreements, as aforestated with the Executing Court within a period of three months from today, whereupon the legal representatives of the defendant-respondent will execute the sale deeds regard ing the aforesaid properties in favour of the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff-appellant will be at liberty to execute the decree by the process of the Court.
-
2002 (11) TMI 768 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... E.L.T. 44 (Mad.) (Addison and Co. v. Commissioner). While granting SLP, the Supreme Court passed the following order - “Delay condoned subject to payment of ₹ 25,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent by way of cost which shall not be costs in the cause. Leave granted. Printing dispensed with. The matter be heard on the SLP paper book itself. Liberty to file additional papers, if any, within six weeks. Original record shall be requisitioned.”
-
2002 (11) TMI 767 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the penalty could be levied only if there was no reasonable justification on behalf of the purchaser for putting the purchased goods to some other use. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a defaulter in making payment to the RIICO for not getting allotment of the plot of land to him and if due to inaction on the part of the RIICO, the respondent could not set up the power-loom on the plot of land and thus was unable to use it for personal reason in the strict sense, it would be imprudent to hold that he should have allowed the power-loom to turn into a junk by not even letting it out. In that view of the matter, the imposition of penalty on the respondent was infact unjustified and hence, the view taken by the Tax Board appears to be just and reasonable as also in consonance with the penalty clause of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This revision therefore, is not fit to be entertained and accordingly it stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 766 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ication is ambiguous. In this context, it is relevant to note the observation of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Vattukalam Chemical Industries 2001 124 STC 233 (2002) 10 KTR 69 (SC). Learned counsel for the assessee sought to rely upon the objects of the notification in aid of the interpretation that he sought to place upon it. The language of the notification being crystal-clear, no external aid to its construction is required. 14.. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is in error in holding that the Notification S.R.O. No. 453/1983 continued to be in existence even after the date of S.R.O. No. 1716/1987 in so far as the reduction in the rate of tax on the sale of tyres from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 59 of 1999 and restore the order of the assessing authority as affirmed by the first appellate authority on this issue. This tax revision case is allowed as above. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 765 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... State of Punjab by a registered dealer. 6.. Before concluding we may refer to the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He referred to Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 109 and also to Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat III v. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana 1998 229 ITR 1 (SC) AIR 1998 SC 120 to contend that the word including in the notification dated October 1, 2002 does not mean that a registered dealer becomes liable to pay tax on the items mentioned in the notification. We have gone through these judgments of the apex Court and they do not deal with the question that has arisen before us. We are, therefore, of the view that these judgments do not advance the case of the petitioner. The interpretation sought to be put on the notification by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. 7.. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petitions and the same stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 764 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rred with the same. The circumstances pointed out by the assessing authority in regard to the purchase of empty tins the absence of closing stock of tins the export of 6,440 tins of kernels in 3,220 cases and the further circumstance that the petitioner had not produced any evidence in respect of the alleged consignment transaction, all points to the fact that the petitioner had effected unaccounted purchase of local raw cashewnuts and also unaccounted sale of cashew kernel processed out of the same. In these circumstances the assessing authority as well as the appellate authorities are perfectly justified in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,50,400 to the sales turnover. We do not find any illegality in the orders of the assessing authority or the appellate authorities in that regard. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in regard to the second point also. There is no merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 763 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be decided, the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter. 7.. Counsel for the revisionist expressed his apprehension that matter may linger on and take long time due to the remand. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection that the assessing authority be directed to decide the matter in a specified period. Learned Standing Counsel has referred to provisions of section 21(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 to the effect that after the remand one year time is provided for reassessment. The aforesaid period of one year is the outer limit for passing the assessment order. However, in view of the facts of the present case the assessing authority may consider and decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8.. The prayer of the revisionist for quashing the order of the Tribunal is refused. However, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction as given above. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2002 (11) TMI 762 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... horitative order from the Tribunal or the High Court. The supplier also did not return form D or give an opportunity to the buyer to get C forms in its place as contended by them. There is again a fundamental question as to whether the petitioner would have got the purchase order from the respondent if the price quoted provided for full rate of tax as against 4 per cent agreed. The buyer was absolutely free to reject petitioners offer if the price was excess by 6 per cent on account of differential tax. The respondent therefore would be able to contend that in that event they would not have issued the purchase order on account of price increase. In short, it is only a case of breach of contract and the remedy against the same lies in civil court. A writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in this case. Original petition is therefore dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 47639 of 2000 in O.P. No. 28339 of 2000(W) dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 761 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e and at present no application for issuance of way bill is pending before the assessing authority. 4.. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned State Representative, we are of the opinion that any demand for payment of advance tax as a condition precedent for issuance of way bill is beyond the statute and therefore, the authority should not have demanded the same. In that view of the matter, we direct the appropriate authority to issue way bill to the petitioner if such petition is pending before them irrespective of payment of advance tax. 5.. With this observation this petition is finally disposed of. We make no order for costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 760 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ples of law unfortunately were not made by the learned Assistant Commissioner and learned member of the Board. The impugned orders dated June 17, 2002 and September 18, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the learned member of the Board are liable to be set aside. The direction given by the learned administrative member of the Board for liquidation of the demand is also not in accordance with law. 11.. We, therefore, allow this application without any cost and direct the appellate authority, i.e., the learned Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to admit the appeal in view of the findings made above and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 12. The learned State Representative prays for stay of operation of the order. Other side raises serious objection. We do not find any ground for staying the operation of the order, since no prejudice is going to be caused to the revenue at this stage. They are at liberty to move before the higher forum. Application allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 759 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... STC 282 (SC). This Court has already held in Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Radhey Shyam Ram Autar 1997 107 STC 122 and Bishambhar Sahai Surendra Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 2004 135 STC 534 that provision of section 12-A(2) of the Act does not apply where exemption is not claimed under section 3-D of the Act. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decisions. 14.. There cannot be any dispute that a State Legislature has no competence to levy any tax on transactions which are in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It is not necessary to go into the validity/vires of section 12-A(2) of the Act in view of the conclusion arrived at that it is not applicable to a case where exemption under section 3-D of the Act is not being claimed as in the present case. 15.. In view of the above discussions, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated May 27, 1991 of the Sales Tax Tribunal. However, parties shall bear their own costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 758 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in cylinders will form part of the turnover as per the definition of turnover in section 2(xxvii) of the Act. A division Bench of this Court in G. Purushothama Panicker v. State of Kerala-judgment dated April 2, 1997 in T.R.C. No. 36 of 1995 1997 107 STC 391 (1997) 2 KLT SN. 75 held that if any deduction is to be allowed it must be one of the terms specified in rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. The petitioner did not establish that the charges collected in the invoice which forms part of the turnover is deductible under any of the clauses in rule 9 of the Rules. In this view of the matter, we are in full agreement with the decision of the Tribunal. There is no merit in these revisions. All these tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 542 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 40 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 545 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 41 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 548 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 42 of 2001 dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 757 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g authority to consider the issue afresh and in accordance with law. Since the first appellate authority has entered a prima facie finding regarding the applicability of item No. 68 of the First Schedule without issuing a notice to the assessee we are of the view that the assessing authority has to decide the matter independently and untrammelled by the observations made by the first appellate authority. While considering the question regarding the rate of tax on computer ribbons, of course, it is open to the assessing authority to consider this issue with reference to item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act also. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh Computer Stationery Manufacturers Association v. State of A.P. 1999 115 STC 173 is also worthy of consideration in this context. A decision as directed above, will be taken with notice and opportunity to the assessee. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 756 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an application is made by the purchasing dealer before the concerned authority, the authority should issue notice to the selling dealer and on being satisfied that the selling dealer has collected the amount of sales tax from the purchasing dealer on raw materials for the period when the exemption was in force and the said amount has been deposited with the respondentState, an order of refund should be made in favour of the purchasing dealer by the concerned authority. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 3), who is directed to issue notice to the selling dealer and after hearing the matter to pass an order of refund or adjustment in case the amount of sales tax has been collected from the purchasing dealer for the relevant period by the selling dealer and deposited with the State Government. 10.. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 755 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... flaw can thus be found in any of the impugned notices which conform to the requirement of section 19 ibid. The submission is good when there are no reasons but not otherwise. This Court cannot go into the adequacy or correctness of the reasons on which the impugned notices are founded. It is for the petitioner to file reply to impugned notice and satisfy the issuing authorities that the reasons stated in the impugned notices are not sustainable and hence no case for reassessment is made out on those reasons. It is then for the assessing authority to decide depending upon the reply so filed by the petitioner whether the impugned notices should be persued and whether reassessment be made and if so to what extent. 8.. The petition is thus absolutely found to be meritless and devoid of substance. It is dismissed in limine but with a direction to respondents to ensure completion of the proceedings within six months after granting opportunity to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
........
|
