|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 291 Records
-
1990 (9) TMI 327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... axes. It is in the above letter, the Commissioner called for the records of the order in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner for review and after the receipt of the records and examining the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner having been convinced that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, directed issue of show cause notice and the final order dated June 3, 1985, was thereafter passed. As the appellate order is dated June 29, 1979 and the records were called for on May 12, 1982, it was within a period of four years and therefore it has to be held that the exercise of power under section 22-A of the Act had been done within a period of four years, i.e., within the maximum period prescribed under section 22-A of the Act. 13.. As far as the merits of the order is concerned, it is not pleaded by the appellant that the order of the Commissioner is erroneous. 14.. In the result, we make the following order The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 326 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... de satisfactory provision for payment of all existing liabilities or has no liability to pay tax under the enactments specified............. . It is admitted that the applicant is yet to pay the interest dues which are an existing liability. Unless it pays them or makes satisfactory provision for such payment, the Commercial Tax Officer can withhold such certificate. In the circumstances, the action of the Commercial Tax Officer does not call for any interference. 14.. In the premises, the prayer of the applicant for issue of declaration forms is allowed. Withholding of such forms for non-payment of assessed dues is not warranted by law. Such forms may now be issued according to law. As regards sales tax clearance certificate, the prayer of the applicant is rejected. 15.. The application, therefore, succeeds in part and is thus disposed of. There will be no order for costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 325 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arlier assessment year 1978-79, in the case of the same assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax held so in the order dated 24th November, 1980. It was positively found that the collections under commission and mahima were received by the assessee after the purchases were over and they cannot form part of the purchase turnover. A Bench of this Court has taken the same view, in T.R.C. Nos. 127 to 130 of 1989, by judgment dated 26th October, 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath 1991 81 STC 63). 3.. Following the earlier decision of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 127 to 130 of 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath 1991 81 STC 63), we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law, and that the order sought to be revised does not merit interference. 4.. The above tax revision cases are without merit. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 324 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contended was only advance, then the middleman really did not exist in those transactions and therefore, they must be held to be sales from agriculturists or unregistered dealers in favour of the assessee. 3.. Mere form of bill of sale or method of accounting cannot alter the nature and correctness of the transaction between agriculturists and the assessee in respect of such turnover for which he had paid the cost or price of groundnut on his own account. Therefore, he was the first purchaser and the Commissioner had come to the correct conclusion that he was not eligible to the exemption as held by the assessing authority. 4.. Therefore, total exemption given by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was correctly set aside by the Commissioner in the suo motu revision. 5.. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. 6.. In the view we have taken in S.T.A. No. 24 of 1986, S.T.A. No. 7 of 1987 also stands dismissed for the same reasons. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of the Circular G.O. No. D284-Seven Law-Ministry dated 6.2.1990 issued by the Government of State of Uttar Pradesh terminating all the existing appointments w.e.f. 28.2. 1990, questioned
Held that:- The impugned circular dated 6.2.90 is arbitrary. It terminates all the appointments of Government Counsel in the districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh by an omnibus order, even though these appointments were all individual. No common reason applicable to all of them justifying their termination in one stroke on a reasonable ground has been shown. The submission on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh at the hearing that many of them were likely to be re-appointed is by itself ample proof of the fact that there was total non-application of mind to the individual cases before issuing the general order terminating all the appointments.
Appeals and writ petitions are allowed. The impugned circular G.O. No. D-284-Seven-Law-ministry dated 6.2. 1990, issued by the Government of State of U.P., is quashed resulting in restoration of status quo ante as on 28.2. 1990, the date from which this circular was made effective.
-
1990 (9) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le to the Act. It will be noticed that the Sixth Schedule is relatable to goods in respect of which sales tax is payable under section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and not under section 5-C thereof. In any case, there is a specific provision so far as sale of articles of food and drink in restaurants, catering houses and hotels, etc., is concerned. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that in the hotel, like the assessee, sales of intoxicants for human consumption are liable to tax at the rate of five paise in a rupee, as mentioned in section 5-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. We find no merits in this T.R.C. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 321 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing of the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. 1969 24 STC 487 (SC), falls clearly within the example discussed by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills case 1979 43 STC 13 AIR 1978 SC 1496, at paragraph 11 as reported in the All India Reporter (at page 29 of STC) and therefore we must conclude that it was always intended by the assessee that freight charges were to be paid as part of the sale price and therefore in computing the assessable taxable turnover it could not be excluded from the sale price. We do not find any error committed by the authorities below including the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and answer the question against the petitioner that the sale price included freight charges and formed part of the turnover and it was exigible to tax though that was not the case before the Appellate Tribunal (where the assessee-petitioner was placed ex parte) or the other authorities. Petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 320 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 986 63 STC 239 the highest Court has held that processing changes the identity of goods. All processings may not change the identity but paddy and rice are two marketable commodities and rice cannot be called paddy and vice versa. Without dilating any further, in view of the aforesaid decisions we hold that paddy and rice are two different marketable commodities and if there is no tax on the export of rice it cannot be said that paddy out of which rice was produced was not liable to purchase tax. For the reasons recorded above, Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2669, 3017 to 3019, 3111, 3112, 3371, 3372, 3760, 4283, 4409, 4479, 4480, 5207, 5553, 5680, 5766, 7577, 10027 to 10033, 12352, 12559, 16990 and 16991 of 1989, are dismissed with no order as to costs. While the Assessing Authority will proceed to make assessment in accordance with law, it will be open to the petitioners to raise all other points before the Assessing Authority and in appeals therefrom. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 319 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ccount for the relevant year with his foreign buyers in the statement, which we have referred to earlier. Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, the last sale by the assessee in favour of exporter outside the State is not exigible to tax. The point of levy, as noticed by us earlier, under the State Act is the last purchase made within the State by a dealer. Now that undisputedly is the petitioner. The petitioner not being the exporter, cannot claim that his purchase resulting in a sale in his favour is a purchase or sale which will be deemed to be in the course of export under subsection (3) of section 5 of the Act, as he is not exporting the goods himself, but it is exigible under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. That view taken by the assessing authority and the Appellate Tribunal is correct and on the facts of the case, the question formulated does not fall to be answered. 8.. The petitions are misconceived. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 318 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat no period of limitation can be even impliedly inferred from the other provisions contained in that section. In the said decision proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was initiated alleging concealment of income. In the absence of any decision of the Supreme Court or of a higher Bench of this Court, the aforesaid principle is binding on us. 7.. In view of the discussion made above, our answer to the question of law is in the affirmative against the dealer by stating that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified to hold that even if penalty proceeding was initiated beyond the period of three years prescribed for assessment proceeding, it is maintainable in the absence of any specific provision providing for limitation for the same in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. JAGADEB ROY, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (9) TMI 317 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... es are quashed as ultra vires. 37.. The respondents are directed to refund to the applicants the amounts of impugned tax and interest thereon, if any, levied and collected from the applicants under the old as well as new sections 4(6)(ii) of the 1941 Act and 4(2)(i) of the 1954 Act prior to as well as after the enactment of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1990. Respondents shall make such refunds within six months from this day after verifying the correctness of the particulars of refundable amounts. Prayer for awarding interest on such refundable amounts is rejected. Since the old and also the new provisions have been found to be ultra vires and invalid, respondents shall be restrained from any further levying or collecting any tax in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. Interim orders are vacated. This judgment will govern all these twelve applications. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Applications allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 316 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, the learned counsel contended that it is a particular variety of plastic which is not mentioned, which according to him will render it not exigible to tax under entry 110. We are unable to agree with that view which is not the test suggested by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision for the common user of plastics. We must apply the test of common parlance in the trade and see what the shop keeper offers on demand of the customer or purchaser. If that is so understood, then the pipe made out of polyethylene is also a plastic pipe in common parlance. 7.. Mr. Gandhi also submitted that in view of our above order, some time may be given for the assessee to pay the entire amount from the date of demand. We are also told that demand is already made by the assessing authority. We give two months time from today to satisfy the demand made for the relevant assessment years. These petitions are therefore dismissed, subject to the time granted. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 315 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gathered by the Check-post Officer could at best be utilised to bring to tax by the concerned authority at Bangalore where M/s. South India Automotive Corporation Limited would be a registered dealer. Any mistake made as claimed, as we have already expressed, cannot clothe the Check-post Officer with jurisdiction to do something which he was not expected to do under the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. His job was to ascertain whether the prescribed documents accompanied the vehicle and the goods which in turn were liable to tax under the Act. Anything else he did would be without jurisdiction and we have no hesitation to state, that on account of his total misdirection, there was improper exercise of jurisdiction and the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the first appellate authority as well as Check-post Officer are, therefore, liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 314 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oubt that the raw granite slabs or blocks, which the assessee-company buys, are subjected to a form of processing by which the end-product is sold or the raw granite is brought to a state which is salable by it. Therefore, we have no doubt, applying the ratio decidendi in Chowgule and Co s case 1981 47 STC 124 (SC), that it was entitled to purchase a crane from Calcutta for using it to lift the blocks of granite to subject them to a process to bring the end-product to sale. In the result, the question raised must be answered in favour of the assessee and held that it had not committed any offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the Act and therefore not liable for imposition of any penalty. 8.. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds and it is allowed and the orders impugned are set aside. Any penalty paid pursuant to the impugned orders is refundable to the assessee or adjustable against his other tax dues, if any. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted and the property in the windows passed on the completion of the work and not before. The contract was for execution of work not involving sale of goods. This decision of the Supreme Court definitely supports the case of the petitioner. Likewise, the decision in 1979 43 STC 195 (SC) 1979 2 SCR 621 (Ram Singh and Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) approved the ratio laid down in 1969 24 STC 349 (SC) (State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd.). 8.. Bearing in mind the ratios laid down in the various decisions of the Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts as found by us hereinbefore, we have no doubt that the transaction in question is works contract pure and simple. The contrary view taken by the authorities below under the impression that the ratio in 1979 44 STC 500 (Mad.) (A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu) will squarely apply, cannot at all be sustained, and accordingly, the tax case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 312 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l of the appeal for default, he filed T.M.P. No. 51 of 1989 for restoration of the appeal. These facts show that the authorised agent was diligently pursuing the matter. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it will meet the ends of justice if the appeal is restored to file and disposed of in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the authorised agent of the appellant. The authorised agent shall file a fresh vakalat on behalf of the appellant within three weeks from today. On the filing of the vakalat, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal shall issue notice to the authorised agent of the appellant and dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the order under revision is set aside. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal shall take the appeal on file and dispose it of in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the authorised agent of the appellant. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 311 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unless it was demonstrable otherwise. But it could not be said that it was demonstrated by crediting the amount of Rs. 2 per quintal in the books of account to the credit of the Government. It could have been demonstrated only by production of the invoices. In the absence of it, the assessing authority correctly, following rule 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules and the provisions thereunder, brought to tax what could not be exempted. The orders upholding such an assessment by the appellate authority and the Tribunal cannot be interfered with by us. 8.. The question, whether the turnover relating to transaction of the assessee-company as agent of the Government is liable for exemption, was not raised as such before the assessing authority. Therefore, the question of permitting the assessee-company to raise that question before us is impermissible. Therefore, we do not have to decide that question. 9.. The petition is dismissed, but there will be no costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 310 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... concession to the tiny industrial units by the rule of promissory estoppel. The case of the khadi and village industries stands on a different footing. The rule of promissory estoppel is not attracted to the facts of those cases. It was a concession allowed to them and it could be withdrawn by the State Government at any time. The impugned notification annexure P1 in the cases relating to khadi udyog is legal and within the powers of the Governor of Haryana. In view of the above discussion, we quash the notification, annexure P1, dated 30th December, 1987 allow writ petitions relating to the tiny industries, i.e., C.W.Ps. Nos. 757, 1026, 1120, 1123, 1244, 1338, 1396, 1553, 2204, 2292, 2794, 2795, 3573, 3574, 4753, 5513, 6802, 7265, 7524 of 1988 and C.W.P. No. 2708 of 1989 and dismiss C.W.Ps. Nos. 3449, 3480, 3580, 3631, 3644, 3681, 3756, 3921, 3924, 3925, 4146, 4213, 4375, 4987, 5216, 5285, 10125, 10335 of 1988 and C.W.P. No. 1784 of 1989 relating the khadi udyog. No costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 309 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ngal and others) being identical to those in Civil Rule No. 18061 (W) of 1985 (Positive Commercial Co. Ltd. and another v. State of West Bengal and others) which has been allowed today, this writ petition is also entitled to succeed, in terms of the judgment delivered today, in Civil Rule No. 18061 (W) of 1985 (Positive Commercial Co. Ltd. and another v. State of West Bengal and others). Accordingly, the impugned seizure made on November 7, 1985, by the Inspector, Commercial Tax, Duburdih Check-post, Duburdih, being respondent No. 5, and the penalty imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Asansol charge, being respondent No. 3 for Rs. 72,953, on the basis of the estimated value of the notified commodities at Rs. 2,91,812 are also liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are discharged from the bank guarantee, in terms of the order dated January 10, 1986, passed by Suhas Chandra Sen, J., which was extended from time to time. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 308 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... concessional rate. That rather assists the view we have taken as the Legislature has made clear what its real intention was earlier. We also notice before we part with these cases that the Commissioner has remanded for fresh imposition of penalty for two years in which certain other purchases were not taken into account. In the view we have taken on the interpretation of the sub-section itself and having set aside the order, there is no cause for us to say anything more about it, because whatever the purchases for the relevant year and whatever molasses, the assessee would be entitled to use the form and obtain concessional rate as such. Once the impugned order is set aside, there is no reason to make any specific reference to that part of the order. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner impugned as at annexure J is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute. Appeals allowed.
........
|
