|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 419 Records
-
1997 (8) TMI 504 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... . The essential ingredients of promissory estoppel exist. This promise cannot be broken and has to be kept. The State Government is free to alter the Incentive Schemes but that would only be with prospective effect for those who respond to the modified schemes. As such it is very difficult to sustain the notification dated January 11, 1990 (annexure 1) so far its operation with retrospective effect is concerned. Its prospective operation will remain unaffected. It will be effective so far the industries set up after January 11, 1990 are concerned. The aforesaid assessment orders and the demand notices deserve to be quashed. 8.. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The notification dated January 11, 1990 annexure 1 so far it is retrospective in effect Reported in 1996 103 STC 146. is quashed. Its prospective operation will remain unaffected. The assessment orders (annexure 2 in each case) and demand notices (annexure 3 in each case) are quashed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 503 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 8(4) of the Entry Tax Act. If the Legislature really intended to provide withholding of C forms to a dealer as one of the modes for coercing him to make the payment of tax amount held recoverable, nothing prevented it from prescribing that also as one of the permissible modes for recovery. Since however section 8(4) of the Entry Tax Act does not sanction the method adopted by the prescribed authority as one of the modes of recovery for the amount of tax determined under the Act, it is impermissible for it to take resort to the same for compelling payment. In the circumstances, therefore I see no justification behind the stand taken by the respondent for refusing to issue of C forms to the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The respondents shall issue the requisite forms to the petitioner in terms of its application dated May 13, 1997 within one week from today. There shall however be no orders as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 502 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her aspect. But without making any enquiry whatsoever about creditworthiness of a person, formation of an opinion cannot be a legitimate exercise. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for fresh consideration by the Commissioner, which shall be done within one month. 7.. Learned counsel for petitioner has furnished certain details/ statements to prove that the petitioner is a concern of financial stability and there can be no doubt about its creditworthiness. If the petitioner is so advised, it may supply details about its financial stability to the Sales Tax Officer and/or Commissioner within ten days from today. While taking a decision on the refund application and deciding about creditworthiness, consideration of the question whether grant of refund would adversely affect the Revenue shall be done by the Commissioner. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. S.C. DATTA, J.-I agree. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (8) TMI 501 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... was fixed at Rs. 3,92,000 it was reduced to Rs. 2,35,000 by the respondent No. 2 and a refund of Rs. 1,57,000 was made. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 on further revision reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000. However, the amount of Rs. 1,35,000, as refundable in terms of the order of the respondent No. 3, has not yet been refunded. Considering the whole aspect of the matter and the conduct of the applicant as discussed in the preceding paragraphs we are of the opinion that no further reduction of the quantum of penalty is warranted. However, the applicant should get refund of Rs. 1,35,000 in pursuance of the order of the respondent No. 3 within six weeks from this order. 14.. Hence, the application is partly allowed only to the extent of refund of Rs. 1,35,000 arising out of order dated September 5, 1996 of the respondent No. 3. Other prayers of the applicant are rejected. We make no order as to costs. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 500 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1988 and 6663 of 1989 relate to show cause notice issued by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in terms of section 21(1) of the Act. Thus, the petitioners, in fact, did not exhaust the remedy available to them, i.e., under section 21(1) of the Act and revision before the Tribunal. This petition, in fact, is pre-mature. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and relegate the petitioners to appear before the concerned authority and raise all such objections as permissible. 22.. In Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 13719, 13720, 15200 and 15206 of 1994 challenge is to the assessment made by the Assessing Authority. The petitioners, in the aforesaid writ petitions, have remedy of appeal and revision under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. In view of the existence of alternative remedy, the writ petitions merit dismissal and ordered accordingly. 23.. Resultantly, we accept the appeals and dismiss the writ petitions. No order as to costs. Appeals allowed and petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 499 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 for setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli. Further, it cannot at all be said, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the assessee-dealer had utilised the equipments purchased for purposes other than the one for which they had been purchased without any reasonable excuse. 18.. In that view of the matter, the imposition of penalty upon the assesseedealer is not at all justifiable, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order of the Joint Commissioner-II, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 deserves to be set aside. 19.. In fine, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Joint Commissioner-II, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5, setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tirunelveli and restoring the order of the assessing officer is set aside. No costs. AppeaI allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 498 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the sales were made to the Canteen Stores Department and it was certified by an officer not below the rank of the Commanding Officer and the goods were meant to sale to the Armed Forces. In that view of the matter I hold that the sales made to the Canteen Stores Department are exempt from imposition of trade tax. 7.. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated March 22, 1997 passed by the Tribunal as well as the order dated January 24, 1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also the order dated March 29, 1994 passed by the assessing authority in so far as it relates to item No. 5 of the said order which relates to the sale within the State of U.P. and to the Canteen Stores Department is hereby quashed and set aside. The amount of tax, if any, paid be refunded to the applicant-company within a period of four months from date. Let a copy of this order be given to the Tribunal concerned under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 497 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is akin and similar to what is otherwise known as garnishee proceedings for dealing with persons from whom money is due or may become due to the defaulter-dealer and section 26(6) only is meant to create a charge on the properties of such garnishee, who has been required to pay to the assessing authority the amount due under section 26(1) and which remains unpaid notwithstanding such demand. The case before us, at any rate, in this proceedings is not that any notice has been issued to the appellant under section 26(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. In any event, the reasons assigned for sustaining the constitutional validity of section 24(2) will equally apply in respect of the challenge made to section 26(6) and there is no merit in the contentions to the contrary. 14.. For all the reasons stated supra, we see no merit whatsoever in the writ appeal and the same fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sum from its buyer as the consideration for the sale, and adopts that figure as the basis for computing its turnover, and the amount received, if any, towards sales tax is neither shown nor deducted from the turnover so computed, the assessee is entitled to the deduction provided for in clause (a) of section 8-A(1). The object of this provision is to enable the assessee to deduct the amount of tax required to be paid by it, and to the extent computed under the formula, from its turnover before arriving at the taxable turnover. As it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had deducted the amount of tax from the aggregate of the sale prices, before seeking the benefit of the application of this formula, it must be held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the deduction permitted under section 8-A(1)(a) of the Act. 9.. We do not see any error of law in the order of the Tribunal. The Revision petitions, is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 495 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ttention was invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.S. Dall and Flour Mills case 1991 80 STC 138. In that case, their Lordships have laid down that the executive instructions can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend. They cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. So far as this proposition is concerned, there cannot be two opinions in the matter. But the above decision has hardly any relevance to the present case. It would be purely an academic question to examine whether the condition laid down in the certificate that major oil-seeds are excluded, runs counter to the eligibility certificate, so far as this case is concerned. 11.. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. Proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the Act is declared ultra vires for the reasons mentioned above. Rest of the petition is dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed in part.
-
1997 (8) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rendered some assistance to its supplier by way of arranging cartage from the supplier s premises to the premises of the transporter or in booking the goods on the lorry, such assistance does not render what is otherwise an inter-State sale into a local sale. 9.. The finding given by the Tribunal that the sale by the supplier to the assessee did not constitute the first inter-State sale, and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to exemption in respect of the sales effected by him by way of endorsing the lorry receipts to its customer cannot be sustained. Under section 6(2) of the Act the second sale so effected by the assessee is required to be exempted and the assessee was entitled to the exemption as claimed. Admittedly, in respect of these transactions form E1 from the supplier as also form C from the assessee s customer in Kerala had been produced. 10.. The impugned order of the Tribunal is therefore, set aside and this tax case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 493 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssment is not at all grantable. This point is answered accordingly. 13.. In view of our answer of point No. 1, the order of the Joint Commissioner II, Madras-5 as relatable to the setting aside the order of the assessing officer revising the original order of assessment giving the relief to the assessee, as respects C and E-1 forms only filed before ever the assessment order was passed by him cannot at all be sustained and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The resultant position would be that the order of the assessing officer revising the original order of assessment is required to be restored. 14.. In fine, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated as above, by ordering restoration of the order of the assessing officer revising the original order of assessment by giving effect to C and E-1 forms filed long before the original order of assessment, so passed. There shall, however, be no order, in the circumstances, as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.
-
1997 (8) TMI 492 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... (R.T.T. No. 155 of 1995) is set aside. (iii) The impugned assessment order dated January 31, 1990 and the order dated February 28, 1990 rejecting the application for rectification are quashed. (iv) The matter is remanded to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Bhilwara, for redetermination in the light of the foregoing observations with the direction that if in the period in question the situs of the sales made of carpet woollen yarn by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is in Rajasthan, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim a set-off on account of the partial exemption provided for in the notification of December 30, 1985. 35.. As such S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1150 of 1990 (R.T.T. No. 155 of 1995) is partly accepted. No order as to costs. J.P. Bansal (Judicial Member).-I concur in the conclusion reached by the Honourable Technical Member as also in the reasons given therefor. Review application allowed. See 1999 113 STC 514 supra.
-
1997 (8) TMI 491 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r had himself, had arranged for the movement of the goods, such movement clearly would not have been a part of the transaction of the sale by the assessee to the buyer. The services rendered by the assessee on behalf of the buyer in arranging the movement of the goods cannot by that act alone render what is otherwise a local sale into an inter-State sale. 17.. We must also observe before parting with the case, that the manner in which the Joint Commissioner dealt with the matter is far to casual. He has not adverted to all the relevant circumstances before proceeding to set aside the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, four years after that order has been made. The power of revision suo motu should be exercised with care on sufficient grounds and not in the manner it has been exercised in this case. 18.. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner made on December 27, 1985 and the appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 490 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the dealers, the consideration for that sale being the same amount as the cost per copy that the assessee had incurred in acquiring these calendars. The Tribunal in the circumstances rightly held that the calendars were sold by the assessee to its dealers for a consideration which was taxable. 8.. The last point urged for the assessee is that the Tribunal ought to have allowed concessional rate of tax even in the absence of C forms. There is no provision in the statute which entitled a dealer to claim a concessional rate of tax in the absence of C form. No such form had been produced in respect of that part of the turnover on which the rate of 10 per cent was levied. There is no error in the order of the Tribunal rejecting the assessee s claim for levy of concessional rate of tax even in the absence of C forms. 9.. In the result, we do not find substance in these revision petitions. All the revision petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 489 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act has been introduced. That new sub-section (4) of section 55 does not confer a right on an applicant who unsuccessfully seeks rectification, to file appeal or revision against the order declining to rectify. If the authority which made the original order is of the view that there are in fact no errors in the order which need to be rectified, or can be rectified under section 55 of the Act, no further proceedings can be taken by applicant, against the refusal of the authority to make an order in favour of the person applying for rectification. 6.. The policy of the statute is to ensure finality at some point of time and not to confer a right on a party to reagitate the matters after it has became final. 7.. The Tribunal was therefore in error in entertaining an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to rectify the alleged errors. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. Revision petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 488 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... in order here. As mentioned earlier sub-section (4) makes every such person liable who at a time of the commission of the offence was in-charge of and was responsible to the company for, the conduct of its business. This offence shall stand purged only if such person proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission thereof. As against this, sub-section (5) makes a director, manager, etc., liable for the offence committed by a company if the department proves that the offence has been committed with his consent or connivance or negligence. It does not require that such director or manager, etc., must be in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at a time of the commission of the offence. Thus both these sub-sections (4) and (5) operate upon planes different from each other. 21.. I concur in the conclusion reached by the honourable Chairman. Review petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 487 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he said two sub-clauses. However, if the retailers are stuck up in such a problem, it is highly desirable that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should look into the matter and ensure that the dealers are not put to unnecessary harassment. 23.. The application is, therefore, allowed in part. We are unable to hold that sub-clauses (vf) and (vg) are ultra vires the Constitution. However, in view of the above findings, the Circular No. 1/94 dated May 2, 1994 is quashed. The grievances relating to non-issuance of declaration form in respect of purposes made during the period mentioned above should be taken care of by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in view of our observation above. If any of the applications referred to in the annexure to the instant application is still pending, the same should be disposed of within one month from this date. We make no order as to costs. L.N. Ray (Chairman).I agree. M.K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member).I agree. Application allowed in part.
-
1997 (8) TMI 486 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... struction, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. The assessee-dealers had been dealing with electrical equipments, ever since the date of their registration under the relevant provisions of the CST Act. It is presumed that they know pretty well that they are entitled to deal with only in electrical equipments and not purchase items of goods for the manufacture of electrical equipments on the basis of C forms. In such circumstances, it is legitimately permissible to make an inference of blameworthy conduct on their part. No doubt true it is, no such finding had been recorded by the authorities below, as we have stated above. The authorities below found the establishment of primordial facts for making legitimate inference. Such being the case, we are of the opinion that there being no specific finding by way of inference is of no consequence. 14.. For the reasons, as above, the tax (revision) case deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 485 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sfer clearly shown that the assessee is the owner of the goods. The consignee is its branch office. The goods have been taken into stock at the branch office. The sales to the customers have been effected by the branch office. The assessee has averred that sales tax has been paid in the State of Karnataka in respect of all those sales. 8. The Tribunal, in our view therefore, erred in holding that the facts of the present case are not capable of being distinguished from those considered by Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel 1985 60 STC 301, as pointed out above. That case is clearly distinguishable. As assessee cannot be held liable for the Central sales tax, merely on the basis that the indent had been received by the head office when the facts show that there was no inextricable links between the movement and the sale. 9.. We therefore allow this revision petition, and set aside, the order of the Tribunal. The parties to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
