|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 427 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 497 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... atic voltage stabilizers are electronic goods. The learned Standing Counsel could not place any material before me to show that automatic voltage stabilizers have not been treated as electronic goods but as electrical goods. 7.. I have perused the order passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, under section 35 of the Act. There is absolutely no discussion in the said order of the Commissioner as to why the automatic voltage stabilizers shall be treated as electrical goods and not as electronic goods. 8.. For the reasons given above and especially in view of the circular issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under entry No. 74(a) including the voltage stabilizers in the list of electronic goods manufactured by tiny units, I hold that the voltage stabilizers manufactured otherwise than by tiny units shall also be electronic goods and the Tribunal has committed no illegality in holding them as such. 9.. In view of the above, all the revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 496 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd antiseptic cream are medicines and are taxable as such at the rates applicable to medicines from time to time as per notifications of the U.P. Government. The Trade Tax Tribunal concerned is directed to pass orders in each case under section 11(8) of the Act within 2 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order by the applicants. An order was passed by this Court on January 30, 2003 directing the Trade Tax Tribunal not to decide the second appeals pending before it in which identical points were involved. This order is vacated, and the Trade Tax Tribunal concerned is directed to decide the pending second appeals of the applicants in accordance with the directions contained in this judgment. 24.. If is further directed that the amount deposited with the trade tax authorities shall be refunded to the applicants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 495 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unal concerned is directed to pass orders in each of these three cases under section 11(8) of the Act within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. An order was passed by this Court on January 30, 2003 directing the Trade Tax Tribunal not to decide the second appeals pending before it in which identical points were involved. This order is vacated and the Trade Tax Tribunal concerned is directed to decide the pending second appeals of the applicants in accordance with the directions contained in this judgment. 19.. The applicants shall also be allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the excess deposits of tax in each of the years relating to these revisions from the date of excess deposits till the date of their refunds to the applicants by the assessing authority concerned. Within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the applicants. No orders as to the costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 494 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... islation. 18.. Legislation directed to sensitive and complex economic measure cannot provide for all possible situations on anticipation of possible abuses. Therefore, the power delegated to the State Government in the instant case to identify the raw materials for the purpose of exclusion from tax concession on consideration of prevailing situation cannot be struck down as invalid. The irrefutable conclusion that follows out of the above discussion is that the State Legislature has not abdicated its essential legislative function to the State authority in excluding the raw materials from the purview of tax concession. In this context, it can be emphatically stated that the writ petitioner is not entitled to refund or adjustment of tax paid during the period between October 15, 1982 and August 1, 1988. Therefore, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 19.. In the result Civil Rule Nos. 1027 of 1997 and 1110 of 1994 are dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 493 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... intention of the revisionist to evade tax and therefore, for this reason also, the penalty could not have been imposed. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist fully supports the case of the revisionist and it is wellsettled proposition that when there is no intention to evade tax, penalty should not be imposed. It is unfortunate due to over-zealous attitude of the authorities, it sometimes, results in mis-carriage of justice. The Trade Tax Tribunal as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) have therefore grossly erred in upholding the imposition of penalty. 21.. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the order imposing the penalty and direct the trade tax authorities to refund the amount deposited by the revisionist with 12 per cent interest from the date of deposit, within three months from the date of the certified copy of the order is produced. 22.. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 492 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt in Dhiren Chemical Industries case 2002 126 STC 122, unless there is evidence showing that the raw material had already suffered tax, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of exemption. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal in directing the assessing officer to grant the benefit of exemption, if it is found that tax has been paid on the raw material. Though the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to verify whether the first sale of the raw material had suffered tax, but in view of the decision of this Court referred to above, with which we concur, as sales tax is exigible on the last purchases made within the State, it is for the assessee to prove that the raw material had already suffered tax, and if it is so proved, then only the dealers are entitled to the benefit of set-off in respect of the tax payable on the finished products. 16.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the T.R.Cs. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 491 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner has neither pleaded nor any material has been placed on record to show that the respondents have withdrawn the exemption granted to it in furtherance of eligibility certificate, annexure P.2, or they have started recovery of tax under the 1948 Act. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel that his client is being forced to pay tax despite the exemption granted by the State Government. 8.. The petitioners plea that the impugned notices and the recovery certificate should be quashed in view of the judgment of the division Bench in the case of Health-Aid Food Specialist Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 3 PLR 821 is liable to be rejected because operation of the order of the division Bench has been stayed by the Supreme Court and as a consequence thereof, respondent No. 2 is entitled to enforce recovery of the amount due under the 2000 Act. No other point has been argued. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 490 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ition will have considerable unexpected tax burden on the dealer. The retrospective levy made by the impugned legislation is unreasonable and unconstitutional and violative of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and, therefore, the amended Act requires to be struck down in regard to its retrospective operation. 37. In the result, the following ORDER I. Petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. II. The impugned orders made under the Act for several assessments are set aside. III. Entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, as it stood prior to April 1, 2001 included imported sugar also and the same was exempt from levy of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. IV. Retrospectivity given to the words produced or manufactured in India after the word sugar in entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule is struck down as unconstitutional. V. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 489 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... However, instead of adopting that course, it has protected the rights of those to whom exemptions were granted under the repealed legislation, i.e., the 1973 Act. Thus, the impugned provision cannot be termed as arbitrary or irrational. The petitioner 39 s prayer for directing the respondents to treat exemption certificate dated February 27, 2001 (erroneously typed in the prayer clause as February 27, 2003) is disposed of in terms of the prayer made by Shri Hooda who requested that his client may be allowed to make a representation to the competent authority for grant of exemption for a total period of nine years commencing from January 1, 1998. It is hoped that the representation, if any, made by the petitioner will be considered by the competent authority and decided at an early date and in any case, latest within a period of three months from the date of its submission. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 488 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of funds. It follows, therefore, that the inability to pay the amount is referable to the paying capacity of the person concerned and not his legal or actual liability to pay the amount demanded. 6.. By applying the ratio of the judgments of the Full Bench in Emerald International Ltd. v. State of Punjab 2001 122 STC 382 (P and H) and of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2001 124 STC 285, we hold that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity and there is no justification, legal or otherwise, to direct respondent No. 3 to entertain the appeal of the petitioner without insisting on deposit of the additional demand, more so because the petitioner did not challenge order dated December 8, 1999 passed by respondent No. 3 and no material has been placed on the record of this petition to show that it was unable to pay the amount of additional demand. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 487 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aiver of interest in terms of the policy contained in letter dated September 22, 1989 is not maintainable because the said policy was confined to the assessments made up to the cut-off date, i.e., October 31, 1989 and it is an undisputed position that cases of the petitioners relate to the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. 7.. During the course of hearing, we asked Shri Avneesh Jhingan to show any document from which it can be inferred that benefit of the policy contained in letter dated September 22, 1989 had been extended to the cases in which tax had been paid after October 31, 1989, but he could not bring to our notice any such policy or instruction. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to entertain the prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondents to extend the benefit of the policy framed by the Government of Haryana for waiver of interest to a particular class of defaulters. 8.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 486 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Tribunal is purely conjectural. Furthermore, even if what has been stated by the Tribunal were to be accepted as correct, the exemption of tax could still not be withdrawn as it is not a ground mentioned in sub-rule (11)(a)(i) of rule 28A for withdrawal of exemption. The decision of this Court in R.K. Mittal Woollen Mills case 2001 123 STC 248 fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that exemption once granted can be withdrawn only in the two situations mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (11)(a) and not on any other ground. 7.. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that since there was no violation of rule 28A(11)(a)(i) of the Rules, the exemption granted to the petitioner could not be withdrawn. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders annexures P8, P10 and P13 are quashed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 485 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which furthermore are not denied by the State respondents, this Court fails to see as to why the writ petitioner should be asked to go back to the department and face a proceeding which even if initiated is likely to futile. 5.. The materials on record having clearly disclosed that the partnership firm has ceased to be in existence with effect from April 1, 1987 the liability of the writ petitioner as a partner must also be understood to have ceased with effect from the said date. If that be so, section 53 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act would constitute a clear bar for the issuance of the impugned notice dated November 11, 1998. The said notice also has the effect of overlooking the fact that the amendment of the Registration Certificate made on July 3, 1993 was with effect from April 1, 1987. 6.. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition has to be allowed and the impugned notice dated November 11, 1998 stands accordingly set aside and quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 484 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted that by the phrase by him shall mean the assessee himself. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission. The work got done on job-work by an assessee is the work for the assessee. It is wholly immaterial whether the raw material is consumed by the assessee for himself or he gets the goods manufactured from the agency of other person on job-work. The assessee utilises the raw material in the manufacture of notified goods. In the eyes of law the assessee got the notified goods manufactured even on job work basis. Counsel for the assessee brought to my notice a circular issued by the principal Secretary, U.P. Sasahan, dated February 5, 2001, addressed to the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. In the said circular it has been provided that under section 4-B(2) of the Act such a dealer shall also be covered who got the notified goods manufactured on job-work. 6.. In view of above, I find no merit in the revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 483 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ption in the light of the Notification S.R.O. Nos. 1515/98 and 1727/93. 7.. The next issue is regarding the rejection of the claim for deduction of the turnover of sales return. The Tribunal has entered a clear finding that the assessee had not furnished any material or evidence in regard to the said claim. We also perused the order of the first appellate authority. It is not seen that the assessee had seriously contested the said matter before the first appellate authority. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal on this point. 8.. The resultant position is that the contentions regarding the addition and the sales return are rejected and the question of exemption based on the notifications S.R.O. Nos. 1515/98 and 1727/ 93 is remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 9.. The tax revision case is disposed of in the manner as indicated above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 17(6) requires my interference. I must also consider the submission of the learned Government Advocate with regard to the applicability of the Hubli Opticals case in 1996 100 STC 405 (Kar). The facts of the case, if read would show that the intention was to exempt only the tax and not the turnover tax. That was a case in which the exemption notice specifically read as tax payable under section 5 of the Act. In the light of the specific wordings in that case, this Court ruled that the inclusion of section 6-B is not permissible on the facts of that case. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case on hand, a statute has to be given its full meaning and it cannot be read to the detriment of an assessee. 11.. In these circumstances, I reject the arguments of the Government. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned assessment order is set aside. Consequently, the demand notice also is set aside. 12.. Ordered accordingly. No costs Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 481 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises), has observed that provisions of section 4-A should be liberally construed. The construction should be reasonable and pervasive so as to advance objective of the provision. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that at the most application of the petitioner when filed can be termed as premature, but has become maintainable in the light of amended notifications and the benefits cannot be denied to it. 16.. For the reasons given above both the orders passed by the Divisional Level Committee dated August 1, 2002 and the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated February 19, 2001, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Level Committee to consider and decide the application of the applicant afresh in the light of observations made above and to issue necessary eligibility certificate, if not otherwise dis-entitled in accordance with law. 17.. The revision is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision comes out unscathed?
Held that:- Reasonableness of restriction is to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of interests of the general public and not from the standpoint of the interest of persons upon whom the restrictions have been imposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot be said to be unreasonable nearly because in a given case, it operates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairness involved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at the relevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness of the legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect to the circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Cancalization of a particular business in favour of even a specified individual is reasonable where the interests of the country are concerned or where the business affects the economy of the country.
The appellants have relied upon the change in Government policy prescribing that there shall be no grant of renewal/extension for charter/lease permits. Learned Solicitor General has stated that if respondents apply in terms of prevailing EXIM policy, as was done by the affronted 32 vessels, due consideration in accordance with law shall be made.
Keeping in view the analysis made of legal positions, and in the absence of any material to discount legitimacy of policy, the respondents have not made out a case for interference. In the aforesaid background the residual plea of the respondents regarding legitimate expectation is also sans merit.
The appeals deserve to be allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 479 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ground that the assessee never carried on the business. The case under consideration before us is altogether different wherein the assessee admittedly carried on the business up to the assessment year 1985-86. Therefore, the above decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rohita Subramaniam 2002 75 TTJ (Mumbai) 101 would not be applicable to the case under consideration before us. Accordingly, we hold that section 50 would be applicable in respect of the premises sold by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89 even though the assessee has not carried on the business from the assessment year 1985-86.In view of above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and hold that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in assessing the profit from the sale of building as short term capital gain under section 50.In the result, the assessee s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 478 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... annot be treated as a casual and non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) of the Act also. An argument was raised that owing to fraudulent transaction, the assessee has received liquidated damages of Rs. 21 lakhs. Therefore, even if it has no cost of acquisition, it could, still fall under section 56. First of all I would like to mention here that the Commissioner of Income-tax has given a definite finding regarding charging of the amount under the head ldquo Capital gain rdquo . So this argument has no force. In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 2001 249 ITR 265, the hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court has held that if the asset has no cost, then it does not mean that the receipt would fall under section 56. This view was expressed while deciding the case of amount received on surrender of tenancy right which is equally applicable in the present case also. Now the matter will go back to the original Bench to decide the case in accordance with the majority view.
........
|
