|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 482 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 891 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... para 2 of the Presidential order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any fault with the findings arrived at by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 890 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... record pertaining to the matters relating to the circumstances warranting the detention of the detenu. We do not find any error of law or jurisdiction in the order of the High Court, the detaining authority and the confirming authority. The present appeal being misconceived is, therefore, dismissed. Shri M.B. Prakash, Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka has realised his mistake of not referring to the documents upon the basis of which the confirmation order was passed and has stated "I respectfully submit that inadvertently I did not refer to the file and documents now mentioned above in my earlier affidavit. This omission is neither deliberate nor intentional. I deeply regret for the same. I sincerely tender my unconditional apology." In view of above, no further action is required to be taken in the matter. We close the matter, so far as, Sh.M.B. Prakash is concerned, reminding him to be careful in compliance of the orders of this Court in future.
-
2000 (12) TMI 889 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... body corporate having separate autonomous status. Its operational area is defined, its office bearers are elected and are free to take their own decision. The committee runs a market, providing civic amenities in the market and performs judicial, legislative and executive as well as fiscal functions. It can raise funds, control and manage funds. Therefore, the ratio laid down in R. C. Jain’s case 1981 58 FJR 284 ; AIR 1981 SC 951 as chiselled and honed by other decisions referred to above squarely applies to the facts of the case. As the indicated criteria are fulfilled, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessee is a local authority. The mere absence of a provision on the lines of the Maharashtra and Gujarat Acts would not be the decisive criteria in view of the analysis made supra. That being the position, the Tribunal’s conclusions are irreversible. The question referred is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (12) TMI 888 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... tters remitted back to the third respondent for passing fresh orders. 6.. Inasmuch as the issue is going to be considered by the third respondent on remand, we do not propose to interfere with the orders of assessment made on May 18, 1999 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Therefore, O.P. Nos. 1413 and 1416 of 2000 are dismissed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition in O.P. No. 1413 of 2000 is also dismissed. 7.. Equally, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (second respondent) dated August 29, 2000 for the year 1995-96 and August 31, 2000 for the year 1996-97, do not call for interference, because admittedly, those orders are in accordance with law. Consequently, O.P. Nos. 1415 and 1418 of 2000 are dismissed. 8.. And this Tribunal doth further order that order on being produced being punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 21st day of December, 2000. Petitions allowed in part.
-
2000 (12) TMI 887 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... om the Board if the nature of proceedings mentioned under section 22(1) are pending according to law for final decision. In the instant case, since no such proceeding is pending as provided under section 22(1) of the Act, the Board is not in the seisin over the matter under law. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. The application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 6.. The application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs. 7.. Judgment delivered in open court and the application is dismissed as per the judgment kept in separate sheets along with the record of this case. After the delivery of this judgment, the learned advocate for the applicant prays for stay of the operation of the order. The learned State Representative opposes it. Heard both sides. We find no reason for staying the operation of this order. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 886 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment of the property of the petitioner. 11.. At the time of considering prayer for interim relief, we did not find any justification to keep under attachment the movable property of the petitioner like finished and semi-finished goods including raw material as that would have caused incalculable losses to the manufacturing and trading activities of the petitioner. We therefore granted an interim relief by order dated October 17, 2000 and directed the sales tax authorities to lift the attachment of movable properties, i.e., finished and semi-finished goods including raw material on the condition of the petitioner furnishing security on its immovable properties to the satisfaction of the recovering officer. We, consider it proper to make the interim order passed on October 17, 2000 as final while disposing of this petition. 12.. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed and in the circumstances, we make no orders as to costs. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 885 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... no argument on this score was advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate-General. Even otherwise, we do not find any merit in the same because the appellate authority constituted under the 1948 Act could not have decided the matter uninfluenced by the decision taken by the Officers Committee. 29.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment in terms of rule 4-B(1) of the 1991 Rules on total production. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to issue fresh sales tax deferment certificate and extend the benefit available to the petitioner under rule 4-B(1)(ii) without applying the concept of incremental production. The punitive action taken against the petitioner for non-filing the returns of sales tax is declared illegal and quashed. The excess sales tax, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards its future liability under the 1948 Act. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 884 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ary for us to state that the specific issue whether the assessing authority is justified in adding 10 times estimated addition never fell for consideration and decision before the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (2-A) of section 20 of the Act does not speak about the assessment year as a whole. On the other hand, it speaks about an issue or a question. An assessment in a particular year may throw many issues or questions for decision-making by the various authorities under the Act and the Appellate Tribunal. 7.. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. We say this because, the statutes with which the Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad and Bombay High Courts in the aforementioned three decisions dealt with are not in pari materia with the provisions of sub-section (2-A) of section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the T.R.C. does not involve any questions of law. Accordingly, the T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 883 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... terms by saying that the authority shall not exercise the power beyond the period of four years. There is no material difference either to the exercise of the power to revise or to the period of limitation prescribed. 24.. For the reasons stated above, we reiterate the view expressed by this Court in Subba Rao case 1967 19 STC 257 (Mys.), Busunur Industries case 1986 61 STC 123 and Satyanarayana Engineering Works case 1999 112 STC 578 and answer the question referred thus That section 22-A envisages and provides for limitation of a period of four years for initiating the proceedings by sending for the records only and would not include the passing of the final order under section 22-A as well. 25.. The division Bench had referred only the question of law to the larger Bench and not the whole case. The matter be now placed before the Division Bench as per roster for deciding the case on merits. 26.. Costs in the appeal shall be the cost in the reference. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 882 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Section 14-B(6)(ii) is declared intra vires to the provisions of the 1948 Act. (ii) Section 14-B(7)(iii) is partly declared unconstitutional inasmuch as it makes imposition of penalty equivalent to 50 per cent of the value of the goods as mandatory. However the State shall be free to introduce provision for imposition of appropriate penalty for non-compliance of sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 14-B. We also hope that the State would make appropriate provision for laying time schedule for passing of order under section 14-B(7)(iii). (iii) During the pendency of the writ petitions, interim orders had been passed directing the release of the goods and the vehicles of the petitioners on furnishing of sureties/bank guarantees. Now the concerned authority shall be free to pass appropriate orders under section 14-B(7)(iii) and the persons aggrieved by such order shall be entitled to avail appropriate legal remedies by filing appeals, etc. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 881 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fresh sacrosantly following the directions issued by this Court in O.J.C. No. 6198 of 1994 (Ipitata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. State of Orissa 2001 122 STC 259) and the law enunciated in the preceding paragraphs. 18.. In view of the discussions made above, we direct the sales tax authorities to dispose of the refund application keeping in mind the ratio laid down by this Court in O.J.C. No. 6198 of 1994 (Ipitata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. State of Orissa 2001 122 STC 259). It is needless to say that the authorities will give adequate opportunity to the petitioner-company and allow it to file such documents as deemed just and proper for deciding the issue. In view of the fact that the matter is pending since long, we direct that the entire exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ application is disposed of. P.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 880 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be given effect to. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated December 13, 1990 (annexure P7), December 13, 1990 (annexure P5), August 29, 1985 (annexure P6), order sheets dated August 10, 1988 to March 10, 1992 (annexure P8), orders (collectively) dated April 23, 1992 (annexure P9) are quashed by writ of certiorari. The assessing officer shall make proper assessment in respect of the same period de novo in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already appeared in this petition, no further notice is now necessary for him to be sent by assessing officer. Since the matter is pending for quite a long time, the petitioner will co-operate with the assessing officer in its early disposal. Let all the assessment proceedings be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. Petitioner to appear before the concerned assessing officer on December 26, 2000. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 879 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... correct in not entertaining the writ application on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. 18.. For the reasons aforementioned the seizure is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, if any. However, xerox copies of all the relevant documents would be kept and the same would be sent to the assessing authority of the petitioner and to the consignor for taking appropriate action in accordance with the law. As the petitioner is a registered dealer in the event it is found by the assessing authority that the petitioner has sought to evade tax or committed any illegality which attracts penal provisions it would be open to the assessing authority to act in accordance with law. 19.. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. All parties are to act on a xeroxed certified copy of the judgment, to be delivered on priority basis, on the usual undertaking. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 878 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... penalty has also been imposed. We, therefore, are of the view that if the petitioner files a revisional application against the aforementioned order the same may be disposed of as early as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the revisional application. 21.. Mr. Chakraborty states that such revisional application will be filed within 2 weeks from date. In the event the revisional application is filed within the aforementioned period, the appellate authority shall frame questions having regard to the fact that a substantial questions of law are required to be considered within two days thereof. The application is disposed of accordingly. This judgment and order shall govern in W.P.T.T. No. 16 of 2000 (Sree Azad Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. C.T.O., Dubirdih Check-post). All parties are to act on a xeroxed certified copy of this judgment, to be delivered on priority basis, on the usual undertaking. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 877 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in view of aforesaid discussion, the petition partly succeed and is partly allowed. The impugned order dated December 30, 1993 (annexure R3) is set aside in part by writ of certiorari. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to get an extension of time for claiming exemption in payment of sales tax on the goods manufactured by them only for the period of 11 days over and above the initial period of three years because during the period October 14, 1989 to October 24, 1989 (11 days) the petitioner was prevented from running the unit on account of curfew in Indore city. 19.. The respondents are now directed to pass consequential orders keeping in view the aforementioned writ issued and observations made so that benefit of sales tax in terms of aforementioned notifications be extended to the petitioner for 11 days. Let this be done within four months from the date of this order. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded. Petition allowed in part.
-
2000 (12) TMI 876 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 318, the Supreme Court entertained the writ petition because the authority higher than the assessing authority had passed a wellconsidered adverse order in the case of the petitioner. In Jindal Strips Limited v. State of Haryana 1996 100 STC 457 (P and H), the division Bench entertained the petition and decided in favour of petitioner because the same had been admitted and remained pending for a period of three years. 23.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to avail of an alternative remedy of appeal. We also direct that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks, then the same shall be entertained and decided on merit subject to the fulfilment of statutory conditions. The application, if any, filed by the petitioner under first proviso to section 39 of the 1973 Act, shall also be decided by the competent authority without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 875 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... thorities the tea estates have to keep substantial amounts with them for making such advances, settling dues, etc., out of periodical collection. We have further noticed that the assessee filed a chart before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the respect of Rungliting and Horhalla Tea Estates that after making advances or settling accounts of ceased/retired workers the appellant had no fund in the provident fund accounts and the appellant had to make advances or settle the account out of his own personal fund. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that as there was no misutilisation of the provident fund collection, the disallowance under section 43B of Rs. 5,93,770 and addition of the said amount of Rs. 5,93,770 under section 36(1)(va) are not tenable in law. We, therefore, find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is hereby sustained. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 874 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
DEEMED SALE — WORKS CONTRACT — DEFINITION — INCLUDES ALTERING, ORNAMENTING, FINISHING, IMPROVING OR OTHERWISE PROCESSING — PHOTOGRAPHER TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DEVELOPING NEGATIVE AND TAKING PRINTS - VALUE OF GOODS TRANSFERRED (I.E., NEGATIVE AND PRINTING PAPER) TAXABLE
-
2000 (12) TMI 873 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... s passing through a financial crisis as result of which it could not attend before the Assessing Officer and even before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice it is considered fair and reasonable to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after considering the evidence which is being furnished before us in the form of a paper book because justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the Rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after giving due and proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2000 (12) TMI 872 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which company may be wound up by Court ... ... ... ... ..... he parties to the petition are not desirous to alleviate their differences and the possibility of any rapprochement appeared to be remote to secure and ensure security and stability in the undertaking, that by itself, would not be the reason to wind up the running business. 43. In the result, we allow this appeal. The order of admission and direction to advertise the petition, passed by the learned company judge, which is under challenge, is quashed and set aside. The winding up petition stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. Needless to mention that nothing observed by us in this appeal may be taken as an expression or opinion on the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations of the parties. If the petitioner chooses to approach the appropriate forum under any other provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, or any other appropriate forum under any other law, the said proceedings, shall be decided on their own merits.
........
|
