|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 225 Records
-
1986 (12) TMI 349 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iew of the matter, the question of law referred by the Tribunal has got to be answered in the affirmative against the petitioner and in favour of the opposite party. 10.. Before concluding the matter, however, we must indicate yet another aspect of the matter which, although does not appear to have been canvassed before the assessing authorities, is equally relevant. The liability of the transferee of the business of a dealer to pay any tax under the Act arises only if the amount in question or any part thereof remains unpaid at the time of transfer. There is no material to show as to whether any assessment order was passed against M/s. Orissa Modern Emporium or, for the matter of that, any demand was raised. Rather, from the facts stated it appears that the assessment proceedings were started right against the opposite party, the successor of the registered dealer. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs of these references. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (12) TMI 348 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... parts and accessories thereto was enhanced to 8 per cent. By notification dated 23rd April, 1976, issued under section 5(1) of the Act, rates of tax were again prescribed by a new schedule under entry No. 61 which reads as follows Sl. No. Description of goods Rate of tax 61 Machineries including sewing machines and component Ten per cent parts and accessories thereof. In the decision referred to above, it has been held that consequent upon deletion of entry No. 47, sewing machine and parts thereof became taxable under entry No. 67 under which the prescribed rate of sales tax is only 5 per cent. 3.. In that view of the matter, it must be held that sewing machine and its parts were assessable to sales tax under entry No. 67 during the period 1973-74 and the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was not correct in holding that they were taxable at the rate of 7 per cent and 8 per cent respectively. 4.. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (12) TMI 347 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ision for an appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal is independent of the exclusive power conferred on the Commissioner by section 22-A of the Act. The provision for an appeal by the revenue cannot also be read as restricting the power of the Commissioner conferred by section 22-A of the Act. Every one of the amendments made by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1963, in particular, the introduction of section 22-A in the place of section 21(2) of the Act, did not provide for curtailing the exclusive and special power of revision conferred on the Commissioner. The power conferred by section 22-A is in no way controlled by the provisions made for an appeal by the revenue. For the reasons stated we see no illegality or want of jurisdiction in the impugned notice. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. This order shall also govern Civil Writs No. 2549 of 1986, 2550 of 1986 and 2551 of 1986 as they raise identical questions of fact and law. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 346 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d Orient Weaving Mills v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 98, that the co-operative society has to be treated on a special footing as compared with other establishments of corporation. In the instant case, if the notification impugned is considered from the point of view of changed circumstances and by taking the fact of the intention to push up the sale of wheat in possession of the Food Corporation of India, there will be no doubt that the notification exempting payment of purchase tax on wheat is fully justified. The principle of equality does not take away the State s power of classifying a person for legitimate purpose. The petitioner s counsel had cited a number of decisions in support of its argument but since we are unable to find them relevant for the purpose of deciding the point involved, we have not referred them in this judgment. For what we have said above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily. Interim stay order is discharged. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 345 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. The Supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice needs to be strongly discouraged. For what we have said above that if, apart from the invalidity of the notification dated 18th July, 1979, the petitioner had any other point against the assessment orders, it should have filed appeals against the same. The writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily. Interim stay order, if any, is discharged. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 344 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Works Ltd. 1985 60 STC 301 1986 UPTC 105. Thus the authorities cited on behalf of the assessee are of no help to the assessee. In my judgment, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 1985 60 STC 301 1986 UPTC 105 the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal suffers from an erroneous approach of law regarding burden of proof inasmuch as it has on the facts of this case placed a wrong burden of proof on the department. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal also becomes manifestly erroneous in law and are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 29th March, 1986 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to rehear the case on merits in the light of the observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 343 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is consequently quashed. It is thus obvious that the requirement of carrying of declaration form by a goods carrier is no longer law. The sales tax authorities had no jurisdiction to seize the petitioners truck transporting the scooters. We, therefore, hereby direct that the sales tax department will release the truck forthwith. It will be open to the sales tax authorities to proceed to assess the assessee in regard to this consignment going to be delivered at Bhagalpur in accordance with law. Since the detention and seizure of the goods were without any authority of law, it is an apt case where the costs should be awarded to the petitioners. We, therefore, hereby allow this application with costs of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the State of Bihar to petitioner No. 2, M/s. Lohia Machines. Limited, Kanpur. It will be open to the State of Bihar to apportion the liability of costs and to take suitable action against the officer concerned. Application allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 342 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h Court in K. Cheyyabba v. State of Karnataka 1980 45 STC 1 and Goodyear India Limited v. State of Haryana 1983 53 STC 163 (P and H) and held that disposal means transfer of title in the goods to any other person. Sub-clause (b) requires that the goods in question should be transferred to some other person otherwise than by way of sale in the State. In the absence of such transfer, there is no disposal of the goods as known to law and hence no liability to tax. There is admittedly no transfer of the cashew shells, the lime shell or the consumed stores in this case, inasmuch as they were used up by the assessee himself as fuel in the case of the cashew shells and in the maintenance of his kiln and factory in the case of the others. Sub-clause (b) of section 5A(1) is therefore not attracted and hence the purchase of these items does not attract any tax under section 5A. No other points are raised in these tax revision cases. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 341 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment, were to be heard together by the Tribunal and after hearing both the parties the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the account books of the assessee are to be accepted and in consequence thereof the appeal of the assessee had to be allowed, in such a situation, in my opinion, the very basis of the departmental appeal on the question of reduction of quantum of turnover does not exist or survive. In that situation, the only order that the Tribunal would have passed on the departmental appeal was to say that since the account books of the assessee have been accepted in the appeal filed by the assessee, therefore, the question of determination of turnover or reduction of quantum of turnover does not survive. This has precisely been done by the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, therefore, I find no error of law is involved in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 340 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 1976 38 STC 475 (SC), State of Bihar v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co., Ltd. 1971 27 STC 127 (SC), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1985 60 STC 301 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Bombay Metal Alloys and Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1983 54 STC 45 (Guj) and Union of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. 1979 43 STC 457 (SC) cited by learned counsel for the assessee are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in each of them the inter-State movement of goods was either the result of an express or implied covenant or it was a necessary incident of the contract, which is not the position in the present case. It follows that the sale of the two generating sets at Jaipur by the assessee did not amount to an inter-State sale and, therefore, the contrary view taken by the Board of Revenue was not justified. Accordingly the revision is allowed in this manner. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 339 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al on that ground. Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that in order to circumvent this objection, without entering into the controversy, the Revenue offers to have an additional verification made by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I as well in the memorandum of the special appeal. In my opinion, this would be the appropriate course to adopt in the present case in view of the offer made on behalf of the Revenue. It is obvious that the Board of Revenue committed an illegality in dismissing the special appeal without giving such an opportunity to the Revenue to cure the defect, if any. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The case shall now go back to the Tribunal which would afford an opportunity to the Revenue to have the verification made also by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur, and it shall then proceed to decide the special appeal on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 338 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Government may be enabled in eight weeks from today either to pass an executive order or issue an Ordinance. If none of the courses is adopted in the period prescribed, the company to submit claims indicating the amount of I.F.S.T. loan under what conditions of G.O. 224 or in virtue of any other scheme. The Government is obliged after receipt of such a claim within three months to pass appropriate orders. If the schemes in G.O. 224, G.O. 375 are abrogated or modified, the affected can choose to seek remedies provided in law. The writ appeal, therefore, is closed with above direction. No costs. W.P. No. 4461 of 1981 What is stated in the writ appeal applies to the writ petition. The petitioner in eight weeks from today to submit their claim as indicated above. The Government to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in three months as indicated in the earlier case. The writ petition with that direction is closed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Ordered accordingly.
-
1986 (12) TMI 337 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he should arrive at the conclusion without any bias and on rational basis. That authority should not be vindictive or capricious. If the estimate made is bona fide and based on rational basis, the fact that there is no good evidence in support of that estimate is immaterial. In such a position, the only consideration would be whether the basis adopted in estimating the turnover has reasonable nexus with the estimate made. 12.. No objection has been raised before the assessing authorities that addition of Rs. 7,000 to the returned turnover of Rs. 71,326.15 paise which is nearly ten per cent for the turnover is not a reasonable basis. It is also not alleged that the Tribunal was vindictive or capricious. There is also no allegation of bias. In the circumstance, the best judgment assessment by the Tribunal cannot be said to be improper. 13.. In the result, the question is to be answered against the assessee. No costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1986 (12) TMI 336 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d penalty.-(1) to (7)...... (8) A rebate of one per centum on the amount of tax payable by a dealer shall be allowed, if such tax is paid by the dealer on or before the due date of payment. 5.. Grant of rebate is a matter relating to payment and recovery of tax as is clear from the short title of section 13 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act provides for appeal against order of assessment under sections 12, 12-A and 12-B and order imposing penalty under section 11(3) of the Act. No appeal lies against refusal to allow rebate under section 13(8) of the Act. A second appeal to the Tribunal lies only against an appellate order. Therefore, in the absence of a provision for appeal against refusal to allow rebate under section 13(8) of the Act, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to allow rebate. Question No. (2) is answered in favour of the department. 6.. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1986 (12) TMI 335 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ost sight of. There is no prejudice also caused to the department by the aforesaid interpretation put by me. Having regard to the above I am of the opinion that the intimation given by the petitioner in the present case on 26th April, 1982, to close the unit on 3rd May, 1982, was a valid one and was in accordance with the prescribed rules and the Khandsari Inspector is not justified under the law to raise any additional demand as done by him in annexure I to the writ petition. The said demand is illegal and is liable to be struck down. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The notice of demand for a sum of Rs. 10,350, a copy of which has been filed as annexure I to the writ petition, is quashed. Since annexure II is merely consequential to annexure I, no relief with regard to the same need be granted. In case the petitioner has deposited any money in pursuance of the aforesaid notice of demand, the same shall be refunded. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 334 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the end of the section are significant and meaningful. 11.. Shri Chaphekar also referred to the proviso of this section, but the question does not arise, as it cannot be said that the transfer of house was during the pendency of any proceeding. 12.. The lower appellate court has referred to exhibits D/3, D/4, D/5, D/6, D/7 and D/8 and the total recoveries thus amounted to Rs. 18,834.64 recoverable from the assessee. The court has further referred to exhibit D/1, which was served on Chandrabai, the assessee, on 31st October, 1970. The sum demanded vide exhibit D/2 cannot be said to be a sum payable by the dealer as a result of completion of the proceedings pending at the time of transfer of the house. 12A. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two courts below are set aside and the plaintiff s suit decreed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to captive consumption - Assembly ... ... ... ... ..... s no such thing as use in the normal course, any more than a use in an abnormal course. The reason he advances for his views is that TELCO had been using the gear assembly in the manufacture of dumper tippers classifiable under item 34, the very reason that demolishes his case. This use, in fact, proves that the gear assembly was used in the factory in which it is manufactured, conditio sine quo non for Notification 118/75-C.E. exemption. 7. emsp The Appellate Collector appears to see these gear assemblies as complete producing machineries. They are not. They neither take part in production nor in producing goods they form essential components of goods, tipper trucks, manufactured in the factory and cleared out of the manufacturing factory, and so are entitled to the exemption they were denied by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector. 8. emsp The central excise authorities are directed to assess the tipper gear assembly as exempted under Notification 118/75-C.E.
-
1986 (12) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aluminium Dross and skimmings ... ... ... ... ..... cial value and hence no duty could be levied. 6. emsp We have considered the arguments of Sh. A.K. Jain, SDR and also the submissions of the respondent. The decision in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 146 (Bom.) is squarely on the issue. The Bombay High Court has held that Dross and Skimmings are merely refuse scum or rubbish thrown-out in the process of manufacture and cannot be said to be the result of treatment labour or manipulation whereby a new and different article emerged with a distinct name, character or use. This ruling has been followed by the Tribunal in Order No. 576/86-B-I (Collector of Central Excise v Omega Cables), 567/86-B-I (Collector of Central Excise v Anam Electricals) and Appeal No. 408/82-B-I (Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Extrusion Processes P. Ltd.). 7. emsp In view of the above rulings, we hold that the Aluminium Dross and Skimmings are not liable to duty under T.I. 68. The notice issued by the Govt. is set aside and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (12) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Affidavit verifying petitions ... ... ... ... ..... he company has misutilised their money. I would not like to push them to a new petition and would permit them to file an affidavit verifying the petition in Form No. 3. I am reminded of the following passage In civil jurisprudence, it too often happens that there is so much law that there is no room for justice, and that the claimant expires of wrong in the midst of right, as mariners die of thirst in the midst of water (Coltan). If reference is made again to rule 6, it would appear that it is at the stage of filing that the Registrar could decline to accept any document presented otherwise than in accordance with the rules or the practice and procedure of the court. I would, therefore, overrule the objections of the company as to the maintainability of the petition on the grounds mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections in its reply. Petitioners would, however, pay a sum of Rs. 500 as costs. The affidavit in the form prescribed will be filed within two weeks.
-
1986 (12) TMI 315 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Annual Return – Penalty for not filing, Meetings and proceedings - Presumptions to be drawn where minutes duly drawn and signed, Dividend manner and time of payment of, Directors - Right of person other than retiring director to stand for directorship, Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator, Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator
........
|
