|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 308 Records
-
1993 (9) TMI 335 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... way back in the year 1992 and the same is pending since then and more so a direct decision of a Division Bench of this Court is there wherein this Court has taken the view that once the item has been mentioned in the registration certificate for purchase of the raw material at concessional rate then it was a conclusive proof and further enquiry is not warranted in that case. Now, no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to appear before the assessing authority and seek his remedy there. The decision given by the Board of Revenue in the case of Jwala Metal Refinery RRD 1978 NUC 40 is of 1977. Thereafter the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Radiators 1986 62 STC 374 has taken a contrary view. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Board of Revenue is no more good law and it is overruled. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, I allow the writ petition and quash the notice dated July 1, 1992 (annexure 5). Writ petition allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut. The Legislature in drafting the clause (viii) of sub-section (vi) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act has excluded only tender coconut from the categories of coconuts and, therefore, watery coconut comes within the scope of this entry. I, therefore, hold that watery coconut is a declared commodity under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. sales tax thereon has to be restricted to the limit of 4 per cent as prescribed in section 15 of that Act. The learned Sales Tax Tribunal was, therefore. in error in confirming the taxability thereof at the rate of 8 per cent. For the above reasons, these revision petitions are allowed and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in so far as it relates to the rate of sales tax leviable on the commodity in question. The Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order on the assessee s appeals in this regard in the light of this judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 333 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e order on the basis of the record, as it existed at the time when the order sought to be revised was passed. Learned Standing Counsel contended that, in this case, substantial justice has been done by the Deputy Commissioner by bringing to tax the turnover that had escaped assessment and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This contention is not tenable. An order passed by an officer imposing a financial liability on a citizen in exercise of jurisdiction that he does not possess cannot be sustained on the plea of substantial justice. For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated July 26, 1984 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) and the two notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner on September 19, 1984, (annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition). The petitioner shall get its costs of this writ petition from the respondents. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 332 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the claim of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It is true that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was the nationalised bank, but that does not debar the application of provisions of section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act to the present case. Lastly, counsel for the respondent No. 6 rightly contended that the judgment given by the court below at the most suffering from error of law, but as section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked in such a case, the decision cannot be interfered with or set aside in the present revision. For the proposition, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Managing Director (MIG), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway AIR 1973 SC 76. This point need not be elaborated as it is settled that the High Court has no power to interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not. Consequently, the revision petition has no substance and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 331 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ers of the Assistant Commissioner, dated July 11, 1989, and the Additional Commissioner, dated June 9, 1992, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law and our observations above after giving an opportunity to the applicants of being heard. Since the case is a long pending one, it may be dealt with expeditiously and disposed of within a period of four months from the date of this judgment at the latest. Till such fresh disposal by the Assistant Commissioner, the respondents are restrained from making any demand of sales tax for the period from October 8, 1985 to October 7, 1988, on the basis of assessments, if any, already made, in pursuance of the leave granted in terms of the interim order dated September 14, 1992. 9.. The application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order for costs. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application disposed of accordingly. Reported in 1995 96 STC 265 supra.
-
1993 (9) TMI 330 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the Rubber Board is not includible in its purchase turnover. In this view, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the assessing authority to exclude the rubber cess paid by the respondent-assessee from the turnover for both the years. 4.. With regard to the deduction of Rs. 2,206 as sales return, the Appellate Tribunal held that the sales return was within time and it happened to be in the next year only due to accidental circumstances and beyond the control of the assessee. It was further held that the rule was complied with. In these circumstances, the assessee was held entitled for the deduction. We see no error in the said reasoning and conclusion. On this ground, the deduction afforded for the year 1983-84 was justified. 5.. We are of the view that the common order of the Appellate Tribunal dated January 31, 1991 rendered for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 does not merit interference in revisions. The revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 329 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ater or with lemon juice or orange juice the same would fall under entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Act. We therefore agree with the decision of the Joint Commissioner that nannari syrup is an item of goods which would properly fall under entry 91 of the First Schedule of the Act. In this connection we cannot ignore the fact that the assessee at one stage did contend in the ground of appeal before the appellate authority as follows The appellant begs to submit that the commodity sold by him is only bottled nannari syrup which is to be classified as bottled soft drinks only falling under item No. 91 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Though the assessee changed the above stand by filing additional grounds there is clear indication that nannari syrup could really fall under entry 91 of the First Schedule of the Act. 4.. For all the above reasons we reject the appeal. The tax case is therefore dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 328 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ophane sheet. We cannot assume that our Legislature supposed that our traders have got expert knowledge in the chemical composition of paper as well as cellophane. We have therefore no doubt to hold that cellophane is not paper coming within entry 42 in the First Schedule as it stood then. The turnover resulting therefrom cannot therefore be assessed at 5 per cent. 3.. Considered in the light of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court and our High Court, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that ammonia paper will not come within the ambit of entry 97 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the same is assessable at multi-point at the hands of the revision petitioner. No other point was urged in the revision. We hold that the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 13, 1992, does not merit interference in revision as it does not disclose any error of law. The revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting order mistaken, it would be a case of mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of the said rule 38. 27.. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and on the facts of the case, it has to be held that the decision of the Constitution Bench in 1985 59 STC 277 (McDowell and Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) had to be applied which is the law declared by the Supreme Court holding the field. In these circumstances, therefore, if the Tribunal ignoring the law, followed an overruled decision, no other conclusion is possible except the one and only conclusion that the said decision suffered from a patent error and required to be rectified. Consequently, even on merits, no flaw could be found in the decision rendered on November 30, 1990. Accordingly the third point is answered against the petitioner. 28.. These are the only contentions urged before us, and as there is no substance in any of them, the revision application fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 326 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l nature in not mentioning section 10 besides section 12 in para 9, which has no effect on merit in the judgment given by the Sales Tax Tribunal and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any error on the face of the record. 3.. It is also held that it was not a case of defect in issuance of the notice, but it was a case where no notice was at all issued by the assessing authority under section 10 as was directed by the appellate authority, which direction he was bound to comply and the notice which was issued under section 7(1) cannot be considered to be a notice under section 10 because the stage of issuing notice under section 10 comes only after the notice under section 7(1) is served and return is filed or not filed. In the present case, notice was issued under section 7 and not under section 10 and, therefore, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in quashing the liability. Accordingly, the revision petitions are rejected. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 325 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... overnment treasury, it cannot be considered to be tax, leviable. Unless tax is levied in accordance with the charging provisions of the section and there is liability for payment of tax, the question of liability of any interest does not arise. On the facts of this case winnowers which are exempted under section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as agricultural commodities are not liable to tax at all and the tax cannot be levied. Even according to the definition under clause 2(r) tax has been defined as tax leviable under the provisions of this Act. Since tax itself was not levied in view of the provisions of section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the amount which has been deposited could not attract any liability of interest under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The view, which the Tribunal has taken is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. The revision petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 324 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd doubt that there is an attempt to evade tax due to the Kerala State Government on the part of the driver of the vehicle in this case. The plea of the driver was that there was no transport of goods unauthorisedly in Kerala State. This plea was accepted. Accepting this plea on the merits the Tribunal held that imposition of penalty is unauthorised and directed the Intelligence Officer to refund the amount collected as penalty to the driver. The appeal filed by the driver was allowed. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed. We are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeal filed by the State, on the ground of incompetency of the officer to levy the penalty, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty and in ordering the refund on the merits. The common order of the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed in so far as it has held that the driver of the lorry is entitled to refund and in ordering the refund. The revisions are disposed of as above.
-
1993 (9) TMI 323 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Nalwaya Minerals and Motor Parts 1990 79 STC 113 1989 30 STL 161 has held that interest liability cannot be created if tax has been quantified under section 12 before the amendment specifically inserting the word section 12 . On the same analogy the provisions of section 11-B read with its explanation have restricted the scope of section 11-B only to those matters where quantification has been done and the section in which it is quantified. If the quantification is under any other section than those specified in section 11-B, then interest could not be charged. Looking to this interpretation of this provision, I am of the view that the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the interest under section 11-B was not chargeable in respect of the proceedings of quantification of tax which were under section 17 of the Act. The revision petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 322 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as preventing any person from questioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act, any assessment on any ground other than the ground of extension in limitation granted by the Commissioner. From a bare reading of the above provision, if any order has been passed by the Commissioner without giving any notice to the assessee concerned or without recording reasons, then the same has been validated. On the basis of the above provision, it is held that the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal is not in accordance with law and is hereby quashed. The assessee would be free to challenge the appeal on merits and, therefore, the case is sent back to the Sales Tax Tribunal for adjudicating the various other issues, which might have been raised by the assessee in respect of merits of the case. The revision is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue with the directions given above. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e notification dated February 13, 1976. The rate may be prescribed by the Legislature itself or power could be delegated to the State Government for prescribing the rate of tax. In either case, prescription of the rate by the Legislature or by delegated authority would be the full rate which could be applicable and, therefore, the sale which has been effected in the present case to a manufacturer will be considered to be in accordance with law. The provisions of sections 5C and 5CC are having overriding effect on all other provisions and, therefore, whenever any purchase is made by a manufacturer or sale is effected by a dealer to a manufacturer, the rates as prescribed under sections 5C and 5CC alone are applicable. There is no contravention of the provisions of notification dated February 13, 1976 and, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 320 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... a to the best of his judgment in the light of our observations above and ir. making such determination, he shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).-I agree. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS PER MAJORITY VIEW 26. The application is allowed in part in the manner as under When acting under rule 12(2) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Rules, 1970, if the assessing officer is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value of wood and timber shown or declared by the dealer, he shall determine with reasons the approximate saleable value of such goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment, in the light of our observations made above, and in making such determination he shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall levy tax accordingly. All other prayers are rejected. No cost is allowed in the circumstances of the case. Application partly allowed.
-
1993 (9) TMI 319 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... I am, therefore, of the opinion that, in this area, the probabilities shown by the Income-tax Officer are not strong enough to justify his conclusion that the sum in question may be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and the probabilities are more in favour of it treating as income from capital gains. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member is more rational, logical and justifiable and I agree with him. The learned Judicial Member has gone only by the document without paying adequate consideration to the other probabilities and also without taking into account the surrounding circumstances of proliferation of black money in the garb of understatement of sale consideration whenever real estate has changed hands in the country, to curb which evil the Legislature have even to intervene. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the appeal in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1993 (9) TMI 318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Development Rebate On Fully Depreciated Assets, Export Market Development Business, Surtax Is Not Business Expenditure, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1993 (9) TMI 317 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fee paid to the auditors has been correctly disallowed in computing the agricultural income of the appellant - expenditure incurred for the purpose of maintaining accounts and getting them audited and for the purpose of preparing a return of income under the said Act. It must follow that the professional fee paid to an auditor for the purpose also falls u/s 5(j) - question is answered in negative
-
1993 (9) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional grounds - Purely legal in nature - Cess - Levy of - Oil extracted by solvent extraction process
........
|
