|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 578 Records
-
1998 (3) TMI 674 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s. We have been informed by both sides that a sum of Rs. 58 lakhs has been paid by proforma respondent No. 1, Deutsche Bank, to the sales tax authorities following the order of attachment. Hence, out of the total demand of Rs. 1,46,99,502.79, more than Rs. 88 lakhs is still due. 14.. We direct respondent No. 1 to release the bank accounts of the applicant-company held with proforma respondents 1 and 2, (Banks) within 24 hours of deposit of the balance amount of demand in cash in favour of respondent No. 4, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. If deposited, that amount shall be treated as security and shall abide the ultimate result of the application for stay and the appeal already filed by the applicants. The appellate authority is directed to dispose of the stay application within ten days. 15.. The main application is, thus, finally disposed of without any order for costs. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member)-I agree. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member)-I agree. Application disposed of.
-
1998 (3) TMI 673 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by the Joint Commissioner will enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the disposal of the second appeal by the Tribunal. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that questioning the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal on March 20, 1998. In view of the categorical provision contained in section 19(2-C) and in view of the statement made that the conditional order was complied with, we direct that no steps should be taken by the third respondent or his subordinates till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner s counsel will file a memo before the Tribunal bringing this order to the notice of the Tribunal and also mentioning the appeal number. 2.. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (3) TMI 672 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ita in the First Schedule. 4.. In our view, the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal is wholly erroneous. The question for consideration is as to why the Legislature has put Glucose-D and Glucovita in juxtaposition to the other products as mentioned in the entry at serial No. 87 which telescoped into the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule. The reason is not far to seek. The Legislature has included Glucose-D and Glucovita in the entry at serial No. 87 analogous to the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended Schedule because in essence Glucose-D and Glucovita are not different but of the nature of other products, as mentioned in the entry at serial No. 127. For these reasons, the T.R.C. is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in this behalf is quashed. It is declared that Glucose-D and Glucovita will be assessed as classified items falling under the entry at serial No. 127 of the unamended First Schedule. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 671 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xpiry of the period of licence granted earlier for the stipulated period is virtually a new licence. Section 10A(5) reads thus A certificate issued under sub-section (2) shall be renewed from year to year on payment of the fee specified in sub-section (1) until it is cancelled. It means, the licence initially granted is for a period of one year. When the period expires, there is no licence. By renewal, a fresh licence comes into existence. It means, the renewal gives birth to a fresh licence. As such, a renewal necessarily partakes of the character of a fresh licence. Viewed in that manner the fee fixed for renewal of registration as Rs. 500 is just and proper. It is for the authority to decide what should be the quantum of licence fee reckoned visa-vis the service rendered by it and it is not for this Court to interfere with such fixation. There are no grounds made out to grant the prayer as sought for. The writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 670 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 22.. It is also necessary to be clarified that if the assessing officer discovers any factual error either apparent on the face of the record or even otherwise, then, he can request the concerned officers of the Industries Department to rectify the certificate after hearing the industrial unit concerned. We also find it advisable to observe that if the concerned officer does not take prompt or desired action in the matter, then the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, at his level, can refer the matter to the State Level Committee whose decision has been given a finality under clause (k) of the Government order reproduced above. 23.. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we allow the present appeal to the extent indicated above leaving open to the appellant to agitate all other issues either of fact or law arising out of the impugned assessment orders before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. Anyhow, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 669 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e not been disclosed. 7.. The specific allegations made in various paragraphs of the counteraffidavit reproduced hereinbefore have not, at all, been denied by the petitioner with the result that the same are liable to be taken as correct. Paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit does not contain anything substantial. The distinction made between the petitioner s unit and that of the M/s. S.K. Fuels on the basis of chimney is hardly of any substance. The Joint Commissioner refused to approve the proposal of the Deputy Commissioner for grant of exemption to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner s unit is an old unit purchased from M/s. S.K. Fuels from whom a huge amount of sales tax is due. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the inference drawn by the Joint Commissioner and the finding recorded by him cannot be said to be bad. No exception can be taken to the impugned order. 8.. This application is accordingly rejected. No costs. Application rejected.
-
1998 (3) TMI 668 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y given by the subsequent inter-State sale-exemptioncancellation notification is not sustainable in law (ii) The end-products of the assessee-dealers sold up to 25th April, 1986 shall not at all be subjected to tax (iii) The end-products remaining in stock, subsequent to the targeted date, 25th April, 1986 shall be subjected to tax at the appropriate rate and (iv) The deletion of penalty, as ordered by the Tribunal cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. 29.. In view of the conclusions as above, the assessing officer has to work out the end-products sold up to 25th April, 1986 and give the relief of exemption therefor. Likewise, if there is any unsold stock of end-products beyond the targeted date of 25th April, 1986, such stock of end-products shall be subjected to appropriate tax. 30.. The tax case (revision) is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (3) TMI 667 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntral and State Government Departments and Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram to the Kerala State Electricity Board and National Thermal Power Corporation also. However, it is a matter for consideration by the Government as to whether the said benefit ought to have been given from the date of S.R.O. No. 1728 of 1993 itself. Now that exhibit P16 representation filed by the petitioner is pending before the Government. There will be a direction to the Government to dispose of the same with notice and opportunity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All further proceedings pursuant to exhibits P18 to P23 revenue recovery notices will be kept in abeyance till the disposal of exhibit P16 representation as directed above. The original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 9263 of 1998 in OR No. 5129 of 1998 I dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (3) TMI 666 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate of tax on the sale of beer. The writ petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above. In S.T.C. Reference Nos. 21 of 1992, 22 of 1992, 23 of 1992, 24 of 1992, 25 of 1992, 27 of 1992 and 28 of 1992, the following common questions of law arise for adjudication by this Court (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bottles supplied along with beer can be sub .jected to tax at the rate of 10 per cent and not 4 per cent? (h) Whether the levy of interest from the date of filing of returns can be upheld in the view of the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Limited v. Commercial Taxes Officer 1994 94 STC 422? (iii) Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner is liable to be reduced if the finding on question No. (i) is in favour of the assessee? The Sales Tax Tribunal. Punjab is directed to refer the abovementioned questions and remit the record of the cases to this Court. S.T.C. Nos. 21 to 25, 27 and 28 of 1992 are decided accordingly.
-
1998 (3) TMI 665 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ur. The main object of the work undertaken by the operator of the photocopier or xerox machine is not the transfer of the paper upon which the copy is produced it is to duplicate or make a xerox copy of the document which the payer of the price wants duplicated. The paper upon which the duplication takes place is only incidental to this transaction. 9.. For all the above reasons I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of the first respondent dated December 7, 1997 is vitiated by the errors of law apparent on the face of the record. I am, therefore constrained to interfere with the said order and quash the same without insisting on the petitioner filing an appeal. The O.P. is therefore allowed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 500. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 31st day of March, 1998. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d been enrolled immediately prior to the commencement of the amended Rules of 1991 could continue to practice no matter they did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the amended provisions of rule 56. Stated conversely, it would mean that no person could after the commencement of the amendment Rules of 1991 be either registered or allowed to practice as sales tax practitioner if he did not have the qualifications prescribed by rule 56 in its amended form. The intention to give retrospectivity to the amended provisions of rule 56 is therefore much too apparent from the amending rules to be capable of being ignored. The respondents were, in these circumstances, perfectly justified in rejecting the applications made by the petitioner. There is no error of law or jurisdiction in the orders passed by them to warrant interference. This writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 663 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The act of preparing an x-ray photo cannot be included in any of the acts mentioned above. It is not the property of the customer on which any work is carried on. There is no transfer of the property as the x-ray film given to the patient has no commercial value. In these circumstances, I feel that the view taken by the Commercial Taxes Officer is not correct. The petitioner is not a dealer and therefore no liability can be fixed on him under the Act. The exemptions which has been provided under section 28 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, as it was existing at the relevant time gives the exemptions to such persons who are dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Since the petitioner is neither registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act nor is a dealer, further as he has not carried out any work in the nature of works contract, the petitioner is not liable for payment of tax. Annexures A and C are accordingly quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 662 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the brick kiln are relevant considerations. As finding of the Tribunal on the aforesaid scores have not been found sustainable, in my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration of the Tribunal and the entire order under revision deserves to be set aside. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to consider the other grounds of challenge on which the order of the Tribunal was assailed before this Court. 8. The order under revision is accordingly set aside. The Tribunal is directed to restore the appeal giving rise to this revision to its original number and to decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in this order. In the remand proceedings it will be open to the assessee to question the assessment order on all such grounds that may be available to it under law including those canvassed before this Court in support of this revision. In the result the revision succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed in part.
-
1998 (3) TMI 661 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held as under The substantive law that the sales tax authorities of the State must apply in assessing and collecting Central sales tax is the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In such application for procedural purposes alone, the provisions of the State Act are available. The provisions in the latter part of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act can be employed by the sales tax authorities of the State only if the Central Act makes a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on Central sales tax and only to that extent. There being no substantive provision in the Central Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax, the sales tax authorities of the State cannot, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing payment of Central sales tax, charge interest thereon. 7.. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the levy of interest was otherwise bad. All these revisions are devoid of merits and are, accordingly, rejected. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 660 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nt obtained by coercion till that point of time and therefore there is no reason why the statement of the driver should not be considered to be a genuine one. The presumption that official acts have been regularly performed should go in favour of the Revenue unless it is rebutted. On the facts of this case there is no reason to hold that this presumption has been successfully rebutted. The allegation of the Revenue officers obtaining a statement incriminating the driver by practicing coercion upon the driver cannot be believed, as no evidence whatsoever has been advanced to support such an allegation. 10.. In the result, we must hold that the orders of seizure and the orders imposing penalty were passed by the C.T.O. in a lawful manner. The orders modifying the penalty amount at different stages of revision also had not suffered from any deficiency and hence the application is dismissed without any order as to cost. J. Gupta (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 659 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 8.. In view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, we need not go into the arguments presented by the learned advocates on behalf of the applicant as well as the respondents and we must hold that the orders charging interest under section 10A passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against which the applicants have approached this Tribunal are legally valid orders which we are not in a position to interfere with. If there is any interim order issued by the High Court restraining realization of turnover tax, the respondents will naturally be required to either wait until the appeal is disposed of or the interim order is vacated or modified, or they may realize the amount of interest in terms of the impugned orders dated August 31, 1992 and February 13, 1995 with the leave of the Appeal Bench of the High Court. 9.. The application is accordingly dismissed with the observations as made above. No order is made for costs. J. Gupta (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 658 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uthority should have completed the assessments and should have raised the demand. Since the petitioners have denied the liability to pay turnover tax in the returns filed by them until and unless an assessment is completed rejecting the return and default is committed in payment of tax due as per the said assessment order, the petitioners cannot be made liable for penal interest. The decision of this Court in Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala 1986 62 STC 227 and that of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Joy Varghese 1999 112 STC 651 (1997) 5 KTR 372 squarely apply. Accordingly it has to be held that exhibits P1 and P2 demand notices demanding arrears of penal interest for the period prior to the demand notices issued pursuant to exhibits P3 and P4 assessment orders cannot be sustained. I accordingly quash exhibits P1 and P2 demand notices. The original petition is allowed as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 29394 of 1997 in O.P. No. 16465 of 1997-I dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 657 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l which may go to show that there was any privity of contract and the goods moved to another State as a result of such contract. 8. It would be seen that various findings of fact set out above were recorded in the order under revision on appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal in its order has considered every pros and cons of the rival contentions and the so called adverse material which led to the rejection of account books and it was only thereafter that it accepted the disclosed book version. The findings recorded by the assessing authority were found wholly untenable. In my opinion, on facts the Tribunal was fully justified in directing that no case for any addition to the disclosed turnover was made out. The learned Standing Counsel was unable to point out any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In fact, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. 9.. Both the revisions are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, rejected. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (3) TMI 656 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eld that coconut is a declared commodity under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and its turnover cannot be assessed to tax at a rate more than 4 per cent. In dealing with the appeals afresh pursuant to this order, the Tribunal will consider the relevancy of the aforesaid decisions for the purposes of deciding the dispute before it and will record its appropriate findings. The Tribunal will also deal with the other contentions that may be raised on behalf of the assessee before it, including those set out in this order. 18.. In the result, the revisions succeed in part and are allowed accordingly. The order of the Tribunal insofar as it concerns the appeals pertaining to the levy of interest under section 22 of the Act, is set aside and the matter is restored to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the appeals giving rise to these revisions afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above in this order. Petitions allowed in part.
-
1998 (3) TMI 655 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ady pointed out, since arrack could be purchased only from the Government distilleries, it is for the respondents to explain as to wherefrom the unaccounted purchases were made by the revision petitioner. No cogent explanation whatsoever has been given by the respondents. 7.. Simply because the books of accounts were not found to be fully posted at the time of the inspection, we are of the view that no addition could be made only for that reason drawing the inference that the books of accounts were not fully and regularly posted because the revision-petitioner involved herself in unaccounted purchases. The respondents should have adduced some evidence to establish that unaccounted purchases had been made by the revision petitioner to justify the addition made on that account. There is no cogent material on the record to support this averment. For these reasons, both the revisions succeed and are allowed and the impugned addition of Rs. 4,03,000 is deleted. Petitions allowed.
........
|
