|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 270 Records
-
1990 (2) TMI 283 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 370 AIR 1989 SC 1371. It need not be pointed out that sub-rule (2) of rule 26A cannot cover a field beyond prescribed by section 25A and article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. 11.. It will be advisable on the part of the framers of the Rules to amend sub-rule (2) of rule 26A in a suitable manner, so that it becomes explicit and in tune with section 25A of the Act. But even in the absence of such amendment, as I have already held above, the words all payments mean only payments made for transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or in some other form, involved in the execution of a works contract. Now the respondents shall proceed to make deductions from the bills of the petitioner in the light of this judgment in exercise of the power under rule 26A of the Act. 12.. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. N. PANDEY, J.-I agree. Writ application partly allowed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 282 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he ships became worn-out or became unseaworthy and, therefore, unfit for future voyages. That being the position, the transactions relating to the sale of the ships at Calcutta port could not be deemed as a sale effected by a dealer in respect of commodities brought by it for the purpose of sale. Consequently, the transaction, in our view, is not exigible to sales tax. The contention that the application at the stage of the notice merely is not maintainable, must have to be overruled for reasons indicated above. The case accordingly succeeds. The notices issued are quashed. But we like to make it clear that if sale of any ship is found to have been effected by the applicant, after importing it into West Bengal for the purpose of sale, it may be a sale by a dealer within the meaning of section 2(b). The case is thus disposed of. There will be no order for costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (2) TMI 281 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ......In Cape Brandy Syndicate v. I.R.C. 1921 2 KB 403 Lord Sterndale, M.R., said I think it is clearly established in Att-Gen. v. Clarkson 1900 1 QB 156, that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see the proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous. I quite agree that subsequent legislation if it proceeded on an erroneous construction of previous legislation cannot alter that previous legislation but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation, then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper, interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier ......... In the light of the above discussion, we find that the order of the Tribunal holding that item 47-A as it stood at the relevant period includes crude oil is correct, and the contention to the contrary cannot be accepted. 10.. In the result, the tax cases fail and accordingly they are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 280 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances, the application succeeds in part. A writ in the nature of prohibition be issued commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to and/or taking any steps in pursuance of the notice dated 5th November, 1985, issued by the respondent No. 4 under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the Trade Circular No. 2/84 dated the 7th December, 1984, issued by the respondent No. 2 and prohibiting the respondents from charging any sales tax for erection of pandals etc., by the applicant for their customers in connection with their business of decorating. Other items of goods let out by the decorators to the customers on hire, however, shall come within the meaning of sale and may be assessable to tax if the turnover exceeds the taxable limit. With the directions as above, the case is disposed of. There will be no order for costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Writ application partly allowed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 279 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ree of cost. However, we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of that argument that has to be considered first by the assessing authority. 6.. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that in view of rule 26-A authorising deduction from all payments being made in respect of works contract executed deductions are being made calculating the total bill of the works contract in question including payments over labour whereas deduction has to be made only in respect of materials used in execution of the works contract. The deduction under rule 26-A should be made reading the words from all payments being made in respect of works contract executed to mean amount of consideration paid for the transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or some other form, involved in the execution of the works contract and shall not include the payments made on account of labour charge. 7.. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (2) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sonable nexus with the object of the law, the distinction made by the law cannot be nullified as violative of article 14 of the Constitution every distinction made, is not an act of discrimination a reasonable distinction is the product of a sound discretion. 30.. The decision of a Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. 1981 48 STC 169, is of no assistance to construe the provisions of section 5(3-D), as the said decision pertains to a period anterior to the introduction of this provision. Section 5(3-D) therefore cannot be invalidated as contravening the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the second contention of the petitioner also fails. 31.. In the result, for the reasons stated above this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of the State Government in this writ petition. Rule is, accordingly, discharged. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 277 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... annot be made to suffer tax on his factual second sale. It can also be presumed that at the time of purchase, the first seller must have collected tax. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is common ground that the first seller was a registered dealer, admittedly for the year 1980-81, and because he failed to renew the registration for the year in question, namely, 1981-82, it was cancelled on 16th August, 1981, with effect from 1st April, 1981 while the transaction in dispute took place on 9th August, 1981. Therefore, it is not correct to hold that the sale by the appellant/assessee is the first sale exigible to tax. 3.. For these reasons and also applying the ratio of the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. C.K. Gajapathy and Co. 1984 57 STC 137 (Mad.), we have no hesitation to allow the tax case and set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 276 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Shri Amarjeet Singh reported in 1963 14 STC 501. There the court held that the power of revision of the Commissioner under section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, can be exercised only against orders passed by the assessing authorities in cases in which no appeal is filed. Once an appeal is filed, orders prejudicial to the Revenue are intended to be corrected in appeal and the appellate authorities have been duly empowered in that behalf. For the reasons aforesaid these applications are allowed. The rules are made absolute. Let appropriate writs be issued. The Commercial Tax Officer will proceed to complete the assessment where notice had already been issued but the assessment has not been completed, in accordance with the findings and observations made in the judgment. This judgment will cover C.R. 11287(W) of 1976 and C.R. 11288(W) of 1976. Writ applications allowed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 275 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be deemed to be a part of the taxable turnover as being incidental to the business of the non-applicant assessee. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. 5.. In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in favour of the non-applicant dealer and against the Revenue and we hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, only the amount retained by the dealer should be treated as being business income, or being incidental to the business in question and not the entire amount received by the dealer. The amount of Rs. 4 per application form for booking of scooters cannot be treated as taxable turnover in the hands of the non-applicant dealer. The question is thus answered. The non-applicant assessee shall be entitled to costs Rs. 250. 6.. Copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior). Reference answered against the Revenue.
-
1990 (2) TMI 274 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns were mutatis mutandis issued under the relevant sections as so incorporated in this Act. It will thus be seen on the one hand that section 7 of the Act has not been incorporated in section 13 of the Entry Tax Act on the contrary the whole of section 17 has been incorporated as if the provisions of that section of the Act were incorporated in the Entry Tax Act itself. 5.. Therefore, when it is the admitted case of the parties and the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) has stated in its case that no notice under section 17(1) of the Act was issued to the dealer, the question of levying of any penalty under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act does not arise at all. 6.. The question referred to us is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee (unregistered dealer) and against the Revenue. The non-applicant entitled to his costs. Hearing fees assessed at Rs. 250. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) immediately. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (2) TMI 273 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the resolution is accepted, then it necessarily follows that at least from April 8, 1988, Shri A. Banerjee was no longer looking after the sales tax matters of the applicant-company and Shri Anup Roy was entrusted to look after sales tax matters. In that view of the matter and in consideration of the fact that the delay was only for a period of about five days, we are inclined to hold that the delay has been sufficiently explained. We find that the delay in the circumstances ought to have been condoned by the learned Additional Commissioner. The order, therefore, passed by the Additional Commissioner dated August 21, 1989, rejecting the application on the ground of limitation alone is set aside. The learned Additional Commissioner is directed to dispose of the application on merits after condonation of delay. The case is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for disposal on merits. The revisional application filed here is thus disposed of without costs. Case remitted.
-
1990 (2) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t denied to an assessee. Payment of admitted tax and/or something more towards the liability assessed is in the nature of procedure. We also do not agree with Shri Jetley that the provisions of section 36(2)(c) are retroactive and should, therefore, apply to all reassessments completed after the amendment of that section with effect from September 1, 1969. As stated by us earlier, for imposition of penalty under section 36(2)(c) the material date is the date on which the act of concealment took place. Since the act of concealment in this case took place on the date of filing of the returns, it is the law existing on that date that would apply and not the amended provisions. 9.. In the result, question Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view thereof, it is not necessary to answer question Nos. 3 and 4. The assessee is entitled to refund of the deposits made by it towards references. No order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1990 (2) TMI 271 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng thereto. The said levy was questioned by the assessee in an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner unsuccessfully and, thereafter, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal successfully. The Tribunal held that the skimmed milk powder is nothing but milk and, therefore, covered by the said exemption G.O. We are inclined to agree with the Tribunal. Since the milk cannot be preserved for long period, it is converted into powder and sold as such. It is nothing but dehydrated form of pasteurised milk, which is exempted under G.O. Ms. No. 20. In our opinion, the interpretation subserves the object of exemption and must, therefore, be adopted. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed out by furnishing certain schedules that evasion of tax in this particular trade had been to a sizable extent, as would be clear from Schedules B, C and D filed within the additional submissions. I do not feel inclined to go into the details of these Schedules, but it may at once be mentioned that the collection of tax at the time of the sales, would certainly avoid evasion by underbilling, etc., as there would be an effective check on such activities. It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that this notification had been issued after experimenting the same procedure so far as the marble dealers at Makrana were concerned and has given fruitful results. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notification has no nexus with the purpose for which it has been issued. For the reasons stated above, I do not find substance in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 269 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... out demonstration he may visit the spot within his jurisdiction to get a first-hand idea of the nature of use. When he visits the spot if requested by the applicant, he shall prepare a memorandum and keep the same on record. Whether he includes the item or not, he should keep the reasons on record and in case of non-inclusion, furnish the reasons to the applicant when sought for, so that the same can usefully be used while assailing the same in higher statutory forums. 6.. Since no useful purpose would be served in dealing with the revisional order on merit, we give liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Sales Tax Officer within March 15, 1990 and on receipt of such application, the Sales Tax Officer shall dispose of the same giving weight to the aforesaid observations on or before May 31, 1990. 7.. In the result, writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No costs. V. GOPALASWAMY, J.-I agree. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (2) TMI 268 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... as Hindustan Lever Limited v. State of West Bengal 1990 76 STC 155. The notices issued are not being quashed, but we express our disapproval as to the form of the notice which we had already done in rendering our judgment dated August 9, 1989. Since such notices have already been issued, we are not going to interfere with the notice itself at this stage. The Commercial Tax Officer concerned, however, shall give notice to the applicants by whatever means possible as to the date of hearing so that the applicants may represent their case at the hearing. The respondents are directed to send copies of the judgment rendered by us in the earlier cases to the Chichira check-post and Duburdih check-post in particular and to all check-posts in general for the guidance of the officers stationed there. This disposes of the two applications. There will be no order for costs. Application disposed of accordingly. Reported as Hindustan Lever Limited v. State of West Bengal 1990 76 STC 155.
-
1990 (2) TMI 267 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the employees of the Statutory canteens were the employees of the Railway Establishment, finder the Factories Act and get a pronouncement on the same? - Held that:- Writ Petitions and appeals of these employees are allowed. The workers engaged in the statutory canteens as well as those engaged in nonstatutory recognised canteens in the Railway Establishments are railway employees and they are entitled to be treated as such.
As far as the employees in non-statutory non-recognised canteens are concerned their petitions are dismissed.
-
1990 (2) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 as amended available.
-
1990 (2) TMI 265 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ability of the company to the Petitioners is only in an amount of Rs. 71,175. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the following order The company to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs. 3,25,000 within 12 weeks from today. On the amount being so deposited, liberty to the Petitioners to withdraw an amount of Rs. 71,175. Petitioners to file a suit in respect of the balance amount alongwith the interest claimed by them within six weeks of the company informing the Petitioners that the amount has been deposited in this Court. On such a suit being filed, balance amount of deposit to be transferred to the said suit. On the amount being deposited Petition to stand dismissed. On failure by the company to deposit the amount as aforesaid, company petition to stand admitted. Liberty to the petitioners to apply for further directions in the matter. Company petition disposed of accordingly. ------------------------- Rajesh Nagory for the Petitioner. Piyush Shah for the Respondent
-
1990 (2) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT
DISCRIMINATION — SALE OF COOKED FOOD — TAX IMPOSED ON SALE OF COOKED FOOD IN POSH HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS
........
|
