|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 243 Records
-
1986 (2) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 9 and 35 STA/69 may be sent to the Superintendent of Taxes to examine the question referred to him by the appellate authority. 17.. Before parting we acknowledge that there is some delay in delivery of the judgment. The reason is that in the course of the argument, clippings or newspaper cuttings and references of 3 (three) relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Chiranjit Lal, since reported in 1985 60 STC 89 (SC), P.A. Thillai Chidambara, since reported in 1985 60 STC 80 (SC) and Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. 1985 UJ (SC) 1070, were placed and/or made and it was urged that the principles enunciated in those cases were relevant. No sooner had the decisions reported in the law journals we discussed and prepared the judgment. Hence the delay. HANSARIA, J.-I respectfully agree with my learned Brother in so far as the conclusion arrived at by him is concerned. MANISANA SINGH, J.-I fully agree with the leading judgment of my learned Brother Lahri, J. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 308 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld like to observe that taxpayers, specially the traders, are supposed to observe the rules of doctrine of fiscal discipline strictly, inasmuch as in order to maintain equilibrium in State finance, they must pay the tax in time so that the State finance economy or in the larger sense national economy, may not be jeopardised, resulting in creating budgetary imbalance. 16.. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the department and against the applicantassessee as under (i) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under section 17(3) was justified and valid in law. (ii) For non-payment of tax, penalty can be imposed in this case in view of retrospective amendment of section 17(3) of the Act by the amending Act No. 13 of 1971. The applicant-assessee shall pay the costs of the non-applicant department. Counsel s fee Rs. 750, if certified. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 307 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been created to realise revenue and not to cause harassment to the people in general. The present case is a living instance of harassment and, therefore, no lenient view can be taken in the matter. The goods were after all to be supplied to the Life Insurance Corporation which is the Government-owned corporation. It was, therefore, expected that the department would act with prudence, but in the instant case they violated all norms of decency and we have no hesitation in recording a finding that such harassments shall not be tolerated in a democratic country like India. With these observations we are of the view that the seizure of goods made by the respondents cannot be justified under law. In view of the observations made above, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. We direct the respondents to release the goods forthwith, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to realise damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per day from the respondents. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 306 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which we have now taken is inconsistent with the observations of the learned single judge. It is obvious that no useful purpose would be served by the petitioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction as the said authority would have been bound by the observations of the learned single judge in the aforesaid judgment. We are therefore of the opinion that this is a fit case in which notwithstanding the alternate remedy available to the petitioner we should exercise our jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons stated above, we quash the order made by the assessing authority imposing penal interest under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act on the petitioner from the date of submission of the return, even though no notice of demand contemplated by sub-rule (3) of rule 18 has been issued in this case. In the light of the enunciation of law made in this case, the authorities shall proceed to take appropriate steps in the matter. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 305 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that court s discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing . Thus, in view of the above I find that the Tribunal has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal especially when no lack of bona fides on the part of the revisionist could be attributed in presenting the appeal. In my opinion, sufficient cause was shown in not preferring the appeal within limitation as after dissolution of the firm, Sri Chedi Lal alone was looking after the case and he could not prefer the appeal as he was confined to bed being chronic patient of tuberculosis and was advised complete rest. In the result, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 12th September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to restore the revision and decide it on merits treating the delay to be condoned. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 304 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch Coffee was different in certain essential characteristics from the original coffee. We may, however, point out that this makes no difference. If a process or an activity results in the production of an article which is commercially regarded as a different commodity, it makes no difference whether the new article is the same in its essential characteristics as the article from which it was produced or not. In the present case, however, as we have already pointed out, the Tribunal has, on material before it, come to the conclusion that the commodity produced by the assessee was commercially the same as the commodity purchased by it, viz., the paper, and, in any event, the applicant has failed to establish that the articles were different commercial commodities. 10.. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The applicant to pay to the respondent the costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 303 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erent commodity from the paper rolls of bigger width from which they were prepared and that the process or activity of slitting the said paper rolls of bigger width into paper reels of smaller width carried out by the assessee did not amount to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and hence there was no contravention of the recitals of form 14 and no purchase tax under section 14 was payable? 2.. The assessee is the same as the assessee in S.T.R. No. 72 of 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Paper Process Works 1986 62 STC 317) decided by us on 20th February, 1986. The activity which is carried on by the assessee is also the same, and it is common ground that in view of our decision in that reference, the question referred in this reference will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 3.. The question is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 302 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court then itself examined the matter and came to the like conclusion. The Supreme Court in Khushiram Behari Lal and Co. v. Assessing Authority, Sangrur 1977 39 STC 34 (SC) upheld the view taken by the High Court. These judgments are conclusive to show that even the High Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, can inquire into the question whether a firm has, in fact, been dissolved. A fortiori, the Sales Tax Officer must have the power to do so when making an assessment. For these reasons, I answer the question referred in the negative, that is to say, the view of the Financial Commissioner was not justified, and he erred in setting aside the orders of remand made by the Assistant Commissioner for verifying whether the firm M/s. Benson Industries was, in fact, dissolved. The Commissioner of Sales Tax will have the costs of these references. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 in each case. JAIN, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 301 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... go into other facts which are not before us and pronounce upon the findings of the Tribunal. The question which is before us is whether a penalty under section 36(2)(c) read with Explanation (1) of the Act can be levied for a part of the year when the assessment is for a part of the year. Our answer is in the negative and in favour of the assessee for the reasons set out earlier. 17.. When the reference goes back to the Tribunal it will be open to the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law. If it is open to the Tribunal to institute or direct institution of any fresh penalty proceedings it may do so, if it thinks fit to do so in the circumstances of the case. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The respondents to pay to the applicants costs of the reference. The deposit of Rs. 100 made before the Tribunal to be refunded to the applicants. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 300 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 46.. Before parting with this case, we deem it necessary to point out on the desirability to amend section 13 of the Act. 46.. We have earlier found that the term penalty had to be construed as interest . In the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu, that State has suitably amended a similar provision in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. We are of the view that a simple amendment to section 13 of the Act by substituting the term interest to penalty would end all this needless litigation before courts. We are of the view that sooner it is done, it would be better for the State. 47.. In the light of our above discussion, we hold that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule with costs of the respondents. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. 48.. Let this order be communicated to the respondents within 10 days from this day. Let a copy of this order be also furnished to the learned Government Advocate within the same time.
-
1986 (2) TMI 299 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a case the Assessing Authority has to take some effective step, such as issuance of a notice to the assessee intimating to him he is proceeding to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer. On failure of a dealer to furnish a return in respect of any period by the prescribed date the Assessing Authority after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard can proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer. In such a case also an effective step such as issuance of a notice to the dealer concerned showing that the Assessing Authority is proceeding to assess has got to be taken within 5 years of the expiry of the period concerned. In this situation the view taken by the learned single judge is wholly in consonance with the law enunciated by the Final Court. No other point has been raised. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 298 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arises when a dealer, in the course of his business, purchases goods specified in Schedule II to the Act. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Synthetics Limited 1982 49 STC 22, the transaction of purchase contemplated by section 7 must have a direct nexus with the business of the assessee, which in the instant case was manufacture of shoe uppers at the material time. The learned counsel for the department was unable to point out that the purchase of goods in the instant case constituted transactions connected with or incidental or ancillary to the business of the assessee. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that purchase of the goods in question did not attract the liability to pay purchase tax. 4.. Our answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (2) TMI 297 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 64-A of the Sales of Goods Act, in case there is a statutory deduction, Government was liable to reimburse such contractors. We are not concerned with the rights of the parties. If the contractors are entitled to reimbursement on account of levy of sales tax, they will rough it out with the Government and claim reimbursement. That is a separate matter. That does not affect the vires or validity of the power to deduct. The submission of Mr. Bindeshwari Choudhary, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected. 15.. For the reasons, stated above, I am of the view that section 25A is intra vires the Constitution. So is rule 26A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. The notifications (annexures 1 series) and notice (annexure 2) are not open to attack. The deductions effected in annexure 3 are perfectly right. The applications must, therefore, fail. They are dismissed accordingly with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250 in each case. NAZIR AHMAD, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 296 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ransportation. The notification in question includes only carton and does not include boxes or outer packages made in cardboard. The boxes purchased by the petitioner from the respondent No. 5 are not cartons and do not fall within any of the goods specified in the notification. I am, therefore, of the view that the said notification whereby the special sales tax is sought to be levied has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the respondents have acted without jurisdiction in purporting to take steps for amending the registration certificate of the petitioner with reference to or on the basis of the said notification in respect of purchase of cardboard boxes from the respondent No. 5. For the reasons aforesaid this application succeeds. The rule is made absolute. The respondents are directed not to proceed any further for amendment of the registration certificate of the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 295 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... yond his jurisdiction. As seen above, the eligibility certificate granted on the 6th February, 1985, was granted by an officer authorised to issue the same only after due consideration. It had neither been cancelled nor withdrawn by the said officer or the State Government. It would, therefore, remain valid until it is so cancelled or withdrawn. We are, therefore, of the view that the Sales Tax Officer, who has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner, was not competent to call in question the eligibility certificate in this case. We are, therefore, of the view that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction whatsoever to call in question the eligibility certificate issued in this case under the provisions of section 4-A(2)(d) of the Act. We are further of the view that the show cause notice issued in the present case is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. The petition is allowed accordingly. Costs will be easy. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1986 (2) TMI 294 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal Against Estate Duty Penalty, Estate Duty, Penalty Under Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... sidered by the Tribunal and answer the question referred on the basis of the same. For the reasons as above, we answer the question as follows We hold that only on an interpretation of section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, section 62(1) and section 73(5) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it cannot be held that an appeal filed by the accountable person against the order of the Assistant Controller was maintainable without payment of the duty assessed and due. The answer is returned accordingly with the direction to the Tribunal that in, disposing of the matter, it should take into account the said two orders, dated April 7 and September 25, 1971, passed by the Tribunal and determine whether any estate duty was due and remained unpaid at the material time. The Tribunal will hear the parties on this aspect, if necessary. The reference is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1986 (2) TMI 293 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessee, Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... of processing the goods entrusted by the assessee, the men employed in the factory of the outside agency are, for all practical purposes, the employees of the assessee itself. This, in fact, is the finding of the Tribunal and that finding is with reference to the books of account of the assessee. See the principle stated in Addl. CIT v. A. Mukherjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 718 (Cal) CIT v. Neo Pharma Private Ltd. 1982 137 ITR 879 (Bom) and Orient Longman Ltd v. CIT 1981 130 ITR 477 (Delhi). In the circumstances, we must, on the basis of the facts found by the Tribunal with reference to the relevant records, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We do so. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this tax referred case. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1986 (2) TMI 292 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents ... ... ... ... ..... ings, the advocate will be permitted to place his objections, if any, in writing before the Investigating Officer. That, to my mind, should adequately protect the interest of the accused or the suspect. For the sake of clarification, it needs to be stated that it is not in every case of interrogation by Enforcement Officers that an advocate can claim to remain present. There is no desire to cultivate a breed of police station lawyers , if one may borrow the expression of Krishna Iyer J. It is only in cases where the accused or the suspect makes a written application to the Enforcement Officer to permit his advocate s presence during interrogation that the accused or the suspect must be permitted to do so. In the result, the rule is made absolute. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated January 14, 1986, is set aside. The petitioner will be permitted to have his advocate present during his interrogation by the Enforcement Officers on the conditions mentioned hereinabove.
-
1986 (2) TMI 283 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shares warrants and entries in register of members ... ... ... ... ..... Mr. Mukherjee. If it is the discretion of the company to insist or not to insist on the production of the succession certificate in terms of article 44 of the articles of association of the company, then we do not find any proper basis for using such discretion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no such basis has clearly been indicated or established by the company in its affidavit filed before the trial court. Since it is a discretionary power of the company, we do not wish to express any view on the question whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the succession certificate would be necessary or not. The appellant will return the transfer deeds to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to file fresh transfer deeds to the appellant in accordance with law. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. R. N. Pyne J. mdash I agree.
-
1986 (2) TMI 273 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... was not carried on in the usual course. For the reasons aforesaid, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sinha. Before I part with this case, I must also refer to one other aspect of the matter. The auditor has stated that the directors received remuneration although there was no or negligible profit. Each of the directors only received Rs. 250 per month as remuneration. Directors are not expected to render voluntary service to the company. They are entitled to some remuneration. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the remuneration received by the directors was unreasonable or excessive. The auditor has acted beyond the scope of his appointment. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed with costs. The official liquidator should not have at all proceeded with this case. The conduct of the official liquidator is far from satisfactory, so also of the auditor who investigated into the affairs of the company. This should not be repeated in future.
........
|
