|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 59 of 59 Records
-
1954 (3) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt of India Act of 1935, i.e., customs including export duties, and therefore the levy was not justified. As regards the other arguments, the decision, just pronounced in T.R.C. No. 48 of 1953 governs this case also. The additional argument does not require serious considera- tion. The sales tax is a tax on transactions of sale. It is in no sense a tax on goods exported outside a territory. The sphere of the two taxes are entirely different, and it is impossible to consider the sales tax in substance or in effect as a tax on goods by reason of the taxable event of export. There is no justification, therefore, for holding that the tax is really a tax in the nature of an export duty, which is within the purview of Entry 44 of List I of VIIth Schedule of the Government of India Act of 1935. We therefore reject the argument and dismiss the petition with costs Rs. 250. Petition dismissed. Since reported as Louis Dreyfus and Company Ltd. v. The State of Madras 1954 (5 S.T.C. 307).
-
1954 (3) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mount for which the goods were bought by the dealer. Adverting to this aspect of the matter, at page 209 of the report, it was observed, that under Section 3(4) of the Act the turnover is to be determined in accordance with the rules that might be prescribed, and rule 4 of the rules framed under the Act prescribes that in the case of certain goods including cashew and its kernel the gross turnover of a dealer is the amount for which the goods were bought by him and in all the other cases, the amount for which the goods were sold by him. (1) 1953 4 S.T.C. 205. In view of the language of the section and rule 4 and in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the above case it is clear that the dealer was rightly taxed by the department, and this turnover was includ- ed by the department in his total turnover. The revision is allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to his costs, which is fixed at Rs. 125. Petition allowed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hould be deducted. The exemp- tion is based upon the principle, that on the same commodity the dealer should not be called upon to pay the tax twice over. If he had already paid tax on the purchase turnover, and if he converted those groundnuts into oil and sold the oil, on the sale turnover of the oil which includes the purchase price of the groundnuts, he should not again be called upon to pay the tax. For that purpose and in order to avoid double taxation on the same commodity this deduction is allowed. All this, of course, is on the assumption that otherwise the entire turnover of the sale of the oil would be liable to tax. If the assessees were exempted from paying tax on the sale turnover of the oil as the sale was outside the State, they can- not claim the benefit of the deduction under rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. This was the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal and we think that is sound. The petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... out in Public Prosecutor v. Jacob Nadar(1) which was followed by me in B.L. Patnaick, In re(2), where a firm is the assessee, it is the firm that must be prosecuted and not the individual partners. If a complaint had been laid against all the three partners then that can be treated as prosecuting the firm. But that has not been done in this case. Only two of the partners were prosecuted and therefore the prosecution cannot lie in view of the deci- sions mentioned above. The convictions and sentences are set aside and the accused are acquitted. The fines if paid will be refunded. This does not mean that a fresh prosecution cannot lie against all the three partners and the plea of autrefois acquit under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not avail these petitioners if a pro- perly framed complaint is laid against the firm as such including all the three partners. Petition allowed. (1) 1951 2 S.T.C. 53 (1951) 1 M.L.J. 511. (2) 1952 3 S.T.C. 222 (1952) 2 M.L.J. 174.
-
1954 (3) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bunal. The Tribunal, however, increased the turnover to Rs. 66,814 by adding a sum of Rs. 5,726-2-0 to the figure, which had been determined by the department. We think that the Tri- bunal has no such power, in an appeal by an assessee, to increase the turnover as the Tribunal is not the assessing authority. They did not exercise the power conferred upon them by Section 12A, sub-section (5), second proviso. Our attention was not drawn to any rule in support of the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and no appeal is provided for under Section 12A at the instance of the department. We therefore modify the order of the Tribunal by restricting the turnover of the boarding house to the sum of Rs. 61,346-6-0 instead of Rs. 66,814. As regards the assessment made by the department on the best judgment principle, we see no ground to interfere as it is a pure question of fact. With this modification the petition is dismissed but in the circum- stances without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se, finds that the firm has absolutely no interest in the tea sales as such as they are effected directly by the estate to Messrs. P.L. and Co. It is clear that what happened was that the petitioner was only bringing the purchaser and the seller together and the goods never passed into his possession. In such cases, as pointed out by the Full Bench in Radhakrishna v. Province of Madras(1), merchants do not fall within the definition of dealer as they themselves neither sell nor buy the goods and simply bring the seller and the buyer together and receive a brokerage or com- mission, by way of remuneration for the trouble. In such cases the merchants are not liable to pay sales tax on the commission that is received. This revision petition is not opposed by the Government. I therefore set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused. The fine and the tax amount, if paid, will be refunded to him. Petition allowed. (1) 1952 3 S.T.C. 121 I.L.R. (1952) Mad, 571 at 583.
-
1954 (3) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case above referred to. As in the present case the power of the Provincial Legisla- ture is derived exclusively from Item 48 in the Provincial List and as the Sale of Goods Act, or an existing law related to an item in the Concurrent List, the subject-matters of the two enactments were entirely different, and therefore the question of repugnancy under Section 107 of the Government of India Act does not arise. As we have pointed out above there is in fact no repugnancy between the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, and the impugned provisions in the Sales Tax Act. The power of the Legislature to enact law is undoubted in view (1) (1943) 74 I.A. 12. (2) 1950 1 M.L.J. 760. of Item 48 in the Provincial Legislative List and in form and sub- stance it was a tax on the sale of goods. For these reasons, we think that the decision of the Tribunal is correct and this petition must be dismissed with costs, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs or persons or goods. The Act itself includes in the expression motor vehicle such of the mechanisms as are propelled by motor and which are used either for carrying goods or for carrying passengers or persons, which is an indication on the part of the legislature as to what they meant by the word vehicle in the expression motor vehicle. Taking the dictionary meaning of vehicle it cannot be doubted that it means a conveyance or a carriage. An agricultural tractor is not used to convey anything and it is employed for agricultural opera- tions and is driven by a driver. It is therefore impossible to accept the contention on behalf of the Government that an agricultural tractor is a vehicle and therefore is subject to the levy of additional tax of 6 pies. In our opinion the interpretation placed upon the word vehicle by the Appellate Tribunal is correct, and the decision of the Tribunal must be confirmed. The revision case is dismissed with costs, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Indian territory and only when the bill of exchange was accepted by the buyer and the bill of lading was handed over to the buyer or his bank. A similar question was considered under the Income-tax Act by this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Mysore Chromite Ltd(1), and the conclusion reached by the Bench was that in similar circumstances and on similar facts, the sale took place outside the Indian territory. As the sale is entirely outside the Indian territory, the State is not entitled to impose sales tax on the sale transaction. If the question is viewed under the Constitution, undoubtedly, the sale was in the course of export, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the recent decisions, and the sale itself was after 26th January, 1950, and the assessee would be entitled to the exemption under Article 286(1)(b). The decision of the Tribunal is correct and this revision petition is dismissed with costs, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed. (1) 1951 20 I.T.R. 546.
-
1954 (3) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on through his agents makes purchases from various places in the State, merely because of those purchases, apart from the definition which has been later introduced, he cannot be treated as carrying on business at all the places to which his agents went and purchased the goods. The more definite and tangible test is indicated in the Licence Form No. 1, that there should be a branch of the business and not merely a stray act of purchase through his own agents or by himself. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal therefore that a separate licence is required and that he should pay separate fee is not warranted by the rule as it stood during the relevant year. The assessee is entitled to the refund of Rs. 250 licence fee plus the penalty of Rs. 5 levied on him. In this respect the order of the Appellate Tribunal is modified and in other respects the order is confirmed. As the petitioner has substantially failed he will pay the costs of the respondent, Rs. 250. Order modified.
-
1954 (3) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ales of paper and labour charges separately the labour charges did not come within the scope of the definition of works contract, and as pure labour charges they were not taxable as the taxable turnover was below the minimum it was not liable to be taxed. That no doubt leaves the first item, receipt for Civil Court work, Rs. 3,664-4-3. Even if this be viewed as a works contract-and we are not called upon to express any opinion on that at this stage-it will be below the taxable turnover. There is therefore no need to apportion it between cost of labour and cost of material deemed to have been sold within the meaning of the definition of works contract . Even tacking it on to the third item, the amount is below the taxable limit. The petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside with reference to the assessment year 1950-51. The amount in its entirety will be treated as not liable to tax. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs, Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot the purchase by the licensed dealer with a view to export outside the State. Though the transaction which attracts the tax is the sale, the turnover, however, has to be computed on the amount for which the goods are bought by the dealer, and this is made clear by rule 4 and also rule 16(2)(ii). But the fact that the turnover is computed on a different basis from that of the transaction, which is subjected to tax, is no ground for shifting the stage at which the tax is to be levied from one transaction to the other. For these reasons we are clearly of opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is exempt from tax in respect of the sum of Rs. 24,239-7-0, which represents the purchase value of hides and skins which the assessee purchased before the coming into force of the Constitution, but which he exported after 26th January, 1950. The decision of the Tribunal is confirmed and the revision petition is dis- missed with costs-Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1954 (3) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT
WHETHER ULTRA VIRES STATE LEGISLATURE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAINTAINABILITY
-
1954 (3) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT
SCOPE OF SECTION 3, ESSENTIAL GOODS (DECLARATION AND REGULATION OF TAX ON SALE OR PURCHASE) ACT, 1952, AND ARTICLE 286(3), CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
-
1954 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT
VALIDITY OF PROVISION IMPOSING TAX ON PURCHASERS - SCOPE OF ENTRY 48, LIST II, SCHEDULE VII, OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 AND ENTRY 54, LIST II, SCHEDULE VII, OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
-
1954 (3) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... so far as the proceedings are under section 22(1)(g ) for knowingly producing incorrect accounts, registers or documents of the firm, we see no reason to interfere at this stage. Mr. Roy suggested that it may very well be that the sanction of the Commissioner that is required under section 22(2) has not been given as regards this offence, namely, under section 21(1)(g) of the Act. The materials on the record are not however sufficient for a decision on this question. This point was not raised in the application on which the rule was issued. If there be no sanction the proceedings will fail but at the present stage it is not possible for us to order quashing of the proceedings on that supposed ground. We accordingly quash the proceedings under section 22(1)(a ) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act of 1941, but discharge the Rule as regards the proceedings under section 22(1)(g) of the Act. The prayer for stay of the proceedings is refused. Debabrata Mookerjee, J. mdash I agree.
-
1954 (3) TMI 18 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding up Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... having been presented. I can only treat the transaction as an attempt to get a preference over other creditors. There fore it seems to me that these two cases do not in any sense govern the present case or stand in the way of the disposition in question being validated. It appears to me, viewing the evidence as a whole and drawing the inference that I do, that this was a transaction which is directly within the passage from the judgment of Lord Cairns, which I read, and I can see no ground for distinguishing between the amount of the debit existing immediately before the presentation of the petition, namely, pound 803 11s. od., and the amount by which the overdraft became increased after the presentation of the petition. For these reasons, therefore, I propose to allow this appeal and discharge the order of the registrar and to declare that the bank are at liberty to retain the whole of the sum of pound 1,308 6s. 10d. Solicitors Durrani Cooper and Hambling Booth and Blackwdl.
-
1954 (3) TMI 17 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding-up of foreign companies ... ... ... ... ..... the exclusion no doubt of the petitioners as mere foreign creditors notwithstanding that their debts are clearly established a somewhat surprising proposition. The object of a winding-up order is to ensure distribution of the assets among the whole body of creditors. No other basis of distribution would be fair. As Pearson J. said in In re. . . Kloebe .......... but whatever the law in France or India may be, the law of England has always been that you must enforce claims in this country according to the practice and rules of our courts, and according to them a creditor, whether from the furthest north or the furthest south, is entitled to be paid equally with other creditors in the same class. I must refuse to alter that which has always been the law of this country, and which I must say, for the sake of honesty, I hope will always be the law of this country. I therefore make the usual compulsory order. Solicitors Mckenna and Co., Bar field, and Barfield Treasury Solicitor.
-
1954 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Section 94 applies to an accused person?
Whether there is any element of compulsion in it?
Held that:- Unable to read Sections 94 and 96(1), Criminal P.C., as importing any statutory recognition of a theory that search and seizure of documents is compelled production thereof. The searches with which we are concerned in the present cases cannot be challenged as illegal on the ground of violation of any fundamental rights and that these applications are liable to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
|
