|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 971 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... visions of law and various decisions relied. In view of the decision of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Suresh Chand Jain 1988 70 STC 45 (SC) the burden to prove the transaction as interState was on the assessing authority which has failed to prove the same. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka STA 392 of 1993, it was held that in Haryana Iron and Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Haryana 1990 77 STC 211 (P and H), Mehta Group of Industries v. State of Haryana 1989 75 STC 428 (P and H) cannot be applied blindly without scrutiny of facts. In these circumstances, looking to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in not following the decisions given in Haryana Iron and Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Haryana 1990 77 STC 211 and Mehta Group of Industries v. State of Haryana 1989 75 STC 428 and we do not consider that any case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. Sales tax revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 970 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion to initiate reassessment proceed ings in respect of any assessment year has been restricted to five years from last date of relevant assessment year. As stated above, in both the cases, notices were issued on March 15, 1995 for initiating reassessment proceedings in respect of assessment year 198889. The period of limitation for initiating reassessment proceedings in respect of assessment year 198889 expired on March 31, 1994. Thus, on March 15, 1995 when the assessing officer exercised his jurisdiction by issuing notice for initiation of reassessment proceedings pertaining to assessment year 198889, the limitation for exercising such power had already expired. In this view of the matter, the initiation of proceedings against the respondentassessee were wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, these proceedings cannot be sustained. 4.. Accordingly, these revisions have no force and they are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 969 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y has been created in respect of the forest produce covered by the said Acts and Regulations provide for appointment of agents registration of manufacturers, etc., and restriction on sale and purchase in identical terms. Since the Division Bench in relation to the sale of timber under the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 has held such sale to be intraState sale in Maharashtra Timber Laghu Udyog Mahasangh 1985 18 VKN 195, the claim of the petitioners based on the decision in Orient Paper and Industries 1982 15 VKN 272 is mis-conceived especially when in the said case, it was patent from the nature of the contract and the covenants with regard to the delivery of the goods for onward transmission to place outside the State that sale itself had occasioned the movements of goods. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6.. Consequently, both the petitions fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 968 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at section 5 of the Act of 1940 envisages the constitution of a Board to be called as Drugs Technical Advisory Board to advise the Central Government and the State Government on technical matters arising out of the administration of this Act and to carry out other functions assigned to it by this Act. It is relevant to mention here that in pursuance of the sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Central Government vide its Notification No. GSR 365(E) dated March 17, 1989 has specified the disposable hypodermic syringes disposable hypodermic needles and disposable perfusion sets as drugs after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board. In this view of the matter, the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer was right in holding the I.V. sets as drug to fall within the entry governing sale of medicines or drugs. 29.. As a result of this, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 967 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liable to pay the tax as determined by the assessing authority in accordance with the provisions of section 7(1)(b). As already pointed out, if the Legislature wanted to give any deduction from the tax as determined under the provisions of section 7(1)(b) of the Act for the period during which it did not work, Legislature would have specifically provided for that as has been done in the case of a dealer in gold and silver ornaments by incorporating a proviso as done in section 7(1)(a). In this case, the legislative s intention is very clear that the tax payable under section 7(1)(b) is for the whole year notwithstanding the fact that it has effected commercial production only for a period of two months. In this view of the matter, the respondents are perfectly justified in issuing exhibits P-1, P-2, P-6 and P-8. There is no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Order on M.P. No. 45955 of 1999 in O.P. No. 27203 of 1999-L dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 966 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see is simply that the fact that the Tax Board has wrongly recorded that the assessee has challenged only to the extent of levy mentioned in the order is incorrect. In my opinion, if any statement of fact about what happened during the hearing is incorrectly recorded, ordinarily the aggrieved party must approach the same forum for the purpose of securing correcting the record if any, so that the correct picture may come out. The learned counsel for the assessee has candidly stated that he has moved such a rectification applications but the learned members of the Tax Board has held that they do not remember about what has been recorded in the proceedings. Ordinarily contemporaneous recording of such statement by the Tribunal is to be accepted as correct. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the revisions filed by the assessee also. 18.. In the result, I find no force in these revisions and they are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 965 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stration numbers of the selling dealers were found to be fake, the assessee cannot be treated as an importer. Sri Kesharwani has argued that under section 12-A the burden of proof was upon the revisionist which he has failed to discharge. Once the dealer says that he has not imported the goods he is not expected to furnish proof of negative form. It was for the department to establish beyond doubt that the goods were imported by the assessee. If the selling dealers had not correctly stated their registration numbers or registration numbers given by them were fake, without further evidence the assessee cannot be held to be an importer. The authorities below have committed error in drawing an inference that the dealer was an importer. 4.. The revision is therefore, allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the turnover of Rs. 2,30,000 is not taxable. 5.. Any amount of tax deposited on this turnover shall be refunded according to law. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 964 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he application and if the authority is satisfied in terms of rule 7 of the 1995 Rules, he shall modify the R.C. accordingly. However, if for any reason the authority rejects the prayer he shall pass a reasoned order and shall supply a copy of such order to the applicant within one week from the date of the order. However, if the purchase of any such goods has already been made by the applicant, the applicant shall be at liberty to pray for coverage of such goods and such application shall be disposed of in the manner stated above and if such prayer for amendment is allowed in respect of goods, mentioned in their earlier application, such amendment shall be allowed with retrospective effect from the date of his purchase provided such purchase was made subsequent to the issue of the impugned R.C. 9.. The application is allowed accordingly in terms of the orders given above. We do not make any order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 963 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the present case the assessing authority exercised his power under section 12 on April 18, 1996. As on that date his power to issue notice was conditioned by the provisions as it stood on April 18, 1996. As per such provision he could exercise his power to issue notices under section 12 only within five years from the end of relevant assessment year. Such period has admittedly expired on March 31, 1996. In the absence of any saving clause for making special provision for saving any action, which may become barred by time due to prescribing shorter period within which action could be initiated, no benefit can be drawn from the provisions of General Clauses Act. The assessing officer as on April 18, 1996 had no jurisdiction for initiating proceeding under section 12 in the present case and action taken by him cannot be sustained. The Tribunal was justified in reaching its conclusion. 15.. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 962 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he firm. Interest should, therefore, be recalculated. 10.. The firm made delay of about 8 months in filing at least its return for the fourth quarter of 1995-96 (vide assessment order at page 26 of the application). A penalty of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed on the firm. In our opinion, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 for such delay would meet the ends of justice. 11.. As regards the export sale by the firm the respondent No. 1 has observed in his assessment order that no document in support of such sale was produced. This has not been disputed before us. 12.. In the above circumstances, the application is allowed in part. The impugned assessment order and the appellate order are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the assessing officer for reassessment in the light of the observation made above. He shall recalculate the interest and TOT and shall fix the penalty at Rs. 5,000. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed in part.
-
2000 (1) TMI 961 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... this case is justified. As regards the order dated December 17, 1999, it is a refusal to intervene in regard to the petition filed under section 55 of the Act. Where there is a refusal to interfere and the order made by the assessing authority is on valid grounds it cannot be questioned in writ jurisdiction. Apparently, the assessee allowed the matter to become final by not filing any statutory appeal. Later, an attempt to invoke section 55 of the Act also failed. Therefore, the present petition is another attempt to get relief by invoking writ jurisdiction. Apparently, there is no case to interfere with the order for laches also in writ jurisdiction. Thus, I find that there is no case to interfere and accordingly the O.P. is dismissed. 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 7th day of January, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 960 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... his is a rule of computation of the turnover of the goods. If no tax is ultimately found leviable on the goods then no tax can be levied on the containers in which the goods are contained. 8.. Thus, in the present case also, as the assessee sold panjamirtham in packed containers, the mere fact that in the label, the price of panjamirtham and packing material has been shown separately, will not entitle the assessee to claim exemption, even if the container suffered tax at the earlier stage. Thus, we find that the order of the Joint Commissioner is in order and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 108 STC 598 (Premier Breweries v. State of Kerala) will squarely apply. Accordingly, the tax appeal case is dismissed. 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 4th day of January, 2001. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 959 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... mproper service of notice. Thus, in this case, I find that the assessee, having allowed the matter to become final, by not pursuing the statutory remedies, after receipt of the assessment order on April 12, 1999, has chosen to approach this Special Tribunal on January 4, 2000, apparently, in pursuance of the form-I notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act on May 28, 1999 and August 6, 1999, as could be seen from the typed-set filed. Thus, apart from the facts as discussed above, I find that the assessee has allowed the matter to become final due to laches on his part and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no case to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9.. The original petition is, therefore, dismissed. 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 12th day of January, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 958 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of photographic materials and they got themselves registered as dealer both under the KGST Act and CST Act and with a view to expand their business, intended to purchase a more sophisticated film processor with its accessories and a printer processor from Bombay. Once the appellant is a dealer and a company engaged in works contract (photo processing is considered as a works contract as per the judgment in Ajantha Colour Laboratory v. State of Kerala (1999) 2 KLT 445 , in our opinion, the appellant is entitled to CST registration and seek amendment to the CST registration certificate. The contentions contraraised by the Revenue have no substance or merit. The writ appeal succeeds. However, we make no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to issue amended CST Registration Certificate within one month from today. Order on C.M.P. No. 6489 of 1999 in W. A. No. 2539 of 1999 dismissed. Appeal allowed. Reported as P.A. Prem Kumar v. State of Kerala 2000 117 STC 76 (Ker).
-
2000 (1) TMI 957 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in section 18 of the Act are concerned. From this it will be seen that both the show cause notice as well as the impugned order are result of non-application of mind to the facts of the case on the part of the authorities. 16.. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the order under section 18 is discretionary and should not be interfered with by the court. Here we have to only observe that discretionary does not mean that it can be arbitrary. The discretion has to be exercised on sound principles and in a judicious manner. In the facts of the present case, discretion by the authorities does not appear to have been exercised on sound principles and judiciously. The impugned order shows total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. It cannot stand judicial scrutiny. 17.. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders requiring the petitioner to furnish security are quashed. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 956 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ons of the Act and Rules are not in order and accordingly such notices are quashed. 63.. In fine, O.P. Nos. 1059 of 1999, 1064 of 1999, 1069 of 1999, 1074 of 1999, 1181 of 1999, 1192 of 1999, 1385 of 1999, 1241 of 1999, 1060 of 1999, 1065 of 1999, 1070 of 1999, 1075 of 1999, 1182 of 1999, 1191 of 1999, 1386 of 1999 and 1239 of 1999 are dismissed. As regards O.P. Nos. 1061 of 1999, 1062 of 1999, 1063 of 1999, 1066 of 1999, 1067 of 1999, 1068 of 1999, 1071 of 1999, 1072 of 1999, 1073 of 1999, 1076 of 1999, 1183 of 1999, 1184 of 1999, 1185 of 1999, 1193 of 1999, 1387 of 1999, 1388 of 1999 and 1389 of 1999 they are allowed and it is open to the authorities to raise fresh demands for differential tax due by following the provisions of law. 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 24th day of January, 2000. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 955 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... therefore is of no assistance. Even otherwise it is the established principle of interpretation of entry that various items have to be considered as of that particular type for which the entries are made. The decision which is relied upon was with regard to cloth bags. The word bags in para (iii) of entry 16-A could not exclude plastic bags. The decision relied on Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited 2000 119 STC 112 (Kar) 1999 (47) Kar LJ 205 is therefore of no assistance to the petitioner. The Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that HDPE bags were liable to tax. 5.. A contention was also raised that it was only on April 30, 1992 the word plastic polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene films were also added. As observed above, plastic has different species and polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene films are also the species of the said genus. The amendment could be considered clarificatory. 6.. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 954 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time. It was applied by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor, 63 Ind. App. 372 AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) and later by this Court in several cases, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh 1954 SCR 1098 AIR 1954 SC 322, Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1962 SCR 662 AIR 1961 SC 1527...... Similar view was also expressed in Narbada Prasad v. Chhaganlal AIR 1969 SC 395, Parmar Himatsingh Jugatsingh v. Patel Harmanbhai Narsibhai AIR 1974 SC 951 and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796. 10.. Looked at from any angle, there is no merit in these cases and we are not inclined to entertain the revision applications. The application are accordingly dismissed. An oral prayer was made for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of article 133 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We do not consider this to be a fit case for grant of such leave. Prayer is accordingly rejected. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 953 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l and Barry Ltd. 1986 61 STC 76 and that of the Kerala High Court in Sree Rama Trading Company v. State of Kerala 1971 28 STC 469 were rightly distinguished by the Tribunal. We find no error of law. In fact, if ammonia paper is excluded from entry 143, it attracts tax at higher rate which will not be in the general interests of dealers/consumers though in the particular case, it suits the assessee to raise the contention that ammonia paper does not fall under entry 143. We see no ground to admit the tax revision cases. The tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 952 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tral Act, as declared goods, the rate of tax has to stand per time to move in terms of section 15. Reliance is placed for this purpose on a decision of the apex Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Punjab 1965 16 STC 310. It is submitted that rate of tax cannot exceed 4 per cent, and no levy is permissible beyond one stage. It is to be noted that levy is questioned on the ground of having made beyond legislative competence of the State. The said submission has been made with reference to article 286(3) of the Constitution read with section 15 of the Central Act. It is to be noted that such a question was not raised before the Tribunal and there are no pleadings to that effect. Even if it is accepted as a pure question of law involving no factual determination, it cannot be adjudicated in an application under section 41 of the Act. In the result, all the tax revision cases are without any merit and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
