|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 401 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 470 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e relevant basis even though the courts may think that it is not the most appropriate basis, the estimate made by the assessing authority cannot be disturbed. 13. After analysing the facts and holding the petitioner guilty of suppression of taxable turnover, the Tribunal concluded that the tax suppressed by the appellant was to the extent of Rs. 14,88,806. The assessment of the suppressed amount was modified to the extent indicated in the order of the Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal took a lenient view and reduced the penalty of one and half times as imposed by the assessing authority. We are satisfied that the order of the Appellate Tribunal sought to be revised is based upon proper appreciation of findings, relevant provisions of law and critical analysis of the documents which requires no interference. The revision filed before this Court is without any basis and substance. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 469 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed counsel further brought to our notice the decision of this Court (to which one of us-myself was a partner dictating the judgment) dated September 26, 1996 in T.R.C. No. 29 of 1994 taking the same view relying thereupon. 8.. In this view of the situation the only modification that would be required would be in the nature of a clarification that the Tribunal is not considered justified in law in ordering levy of turnover tax on the amount of tax collected. To that extent the directions of the Tribunal in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of its order would get quashed and set aside. For all the above reasons all the three revision cases succeed partly in the context of the direction to levy and recover turnover tax on the amount of the tax collected to be understood as having been quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. Revision petitions partly allowed. Reported as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Malabar Produce Agency 2003 133 STC 241.
-
1996 (10) TMI 468 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and if it leads to the situation of proof that there was no evasion of tax, penalty could not be understood to be justifiably leviable. It is sufficient that the party produces material to satisfy the adjudicating authority that there was no attempt at evasion of tax by producing the necessary documents during the course of the enquiry that follows after interception. 7.. In view of the above, when the payment of tax is abundantly established, the proceedings resulting in the imposition of penalty of Rs. 4,693 get vitiated. 8.. For the above reasons all the three orders get quashed and set aside. The revision petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount of penalty of Rs. 4,693 forthwith. Forthwith should mean within a period of one month from the presentation of the copy of the order before the appropriate authority. The tax revision case succeeds accordingly. Petition allowed. Sunitha Diesel Sales and Services v. State of Kerala 1996 102 STC 448 1996 KLJ (Tax Cases) 259.
-
1996 (10) TMI 467 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings will be barred by time as such. 4.. Be that as it may, going through the matter, we find that the limitation is a jurisdictional aspect. We do not see any justification on the part of the department to allow such cases to travel beyond the strict statutory period of compliance. It is not that none is concerned in the context of the situation with reference to the aspect of accountability in regard thereto. That is the internal problem of the department. However, we are sad that the situation of escapement of assessment to the extent of the assessee filing no returns at all, somehow is allowed to travel beyond the statutory limit. We feel that it should be the concern of the department to find out and locate the origin of responsibility and consequent accountability in regard thereto. 5.. On plain aspects, the proceeding is time-barred. Consequently, the tax revision case succeeds resulting into the quashing and setting aside of the three orders. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 466 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed that the concession had been granted under notification annexure 3 dated December 26, 1986 while passing assessment order annexure 15. Rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present controversy. Present point is not involved in any said reported case. Section 5C and 5CC are not confined to sales within the State. They are also applicable to goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or the goods exported out of India. It was in the discretion of a dealer to take advantage of concessional rate of tax under section 5C or 5CC of the Act while purchasing the raw materials. If the petitioner has not availed the benefits under section 5C or 5CC while making purchases of raw wool, the respondents cannot be directed to refund excess amount of tax paid by the petitioner while purchasing the raw wool. 10.. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 465 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not open for the revenue to contend that the expression total turnover relating to transfer of property as appearing in section 17(6) of the Act should be read as total turnover relating to the value of the works contract. Such an interpretation cannot be given by applying any known and established rule of construction of statutes. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioners are liable to pay tax at the rate of 2 per cent on the total turnover relating to transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or any other form) involved in execution of the works contract under taken by them and not on the entire value of such contract. 5.. Accordingly, the impugned assessment orders are quashed with liberty to the assessing officers to pass fresh assessment orders keeping in view the law as laid down above and other relevant provisions of the contract. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed but without any costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 464 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ax Act, 1994 against the petitioner for effecting the recovery of the amounts of tax, interests and penalty outstanding against M/s. Ratanada Chemicals Limited, Marudhar Industrial Area, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3). 11.. The petitioner is given an opportunity to file his reply to the notice dated September 13, 1990, annexure 8, within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No. 2 will also give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence in rebuttal to the material or evidence which may be brought on record in support of the notice, annexure 8 and also to produce evidence in support of his reply. The respondent No. 2 will decide all objections taken in the reply by a speaking order, keeping in view the provisions of the Act, quoted in paras 8 and 9 supra. Thereafter, complaint may be filed against the petitioner, if so required by the order deciding the objections taken in the reply to the notice, annexure 8. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 463 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... it was pressed at the time of arguments. The application is thus dismissed. Respondents will be at liberty to encash the bank guarantee for Rs. 19,000 furnished by applicant in terms of the interim order dated September 8, 1995. However, that amount will abide the ultimate result of assessment of luxury tax that may be made according to law. If there is no assessment of such luxury tax under 1994 Act within a period of twelve weeks from this day, the said sum of Rs. 19,000 shall be refunded by the respondents to the applicant immediately after expiry of twelve weeks hence. No order is made for costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and order made by the learned advocate for the applicant is opposed by learned State Representative. We reject the prayer for stay but direct that the bank guarantee of Rs. 19,000 shall be encashed only after assessment of luxury tax if any, is made. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree.
-
1996 (10) TMI 462 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... iminal Procedure Code. So, the provision of section 165, Code of Criminal Procedure at most becomes a part of rule 207 framed under 1994 Act. A rule cannot override the express provisions of the Act. Therefore, non-compliance with the provision of section 165, Code of Criminal Procedure relating to recording of reasons for search cannot invalidate a search under section 67 of 1994 Act. Moreover, we have already seen that, in fact, there was no occasion of search at the residence of the applicant. 35.. In the result, I hold that the seizures of business records from the residence as well as the business place of the applicant on December 11, 1995 are valid and there is no infirmity therein. Accordingly, the application is dismissed without any order for costs. 36.. J. Gupta (Judicial Member).-I agree. 37.. Order of the Tribunal In view of the opinion of the majority, the application is dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. No order is made for costs. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 461 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion in the delivery note as to how and on what authority the goods were received from Chingavanam. Had the appellant got a purchase bill for the above goods prior to drawing the delivery note and transportation of the goods there was no difficulty or impediments in noting the above details in the relevant columns of the delivery note. Added to this the delivery note is dated June 13, 1989 and the transport is on June 15, 1989. The corrections in the delivery note also adds to the above defect. 3.. Therefore, the petitioner-assessee has preferred this revision case under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The above quoted factfindings clearly establish and consequently justify resort to section 29-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, which-all the above findings of the three authorities-left to ourselves also, we would not have been able to reach any other conclusion. For the above reasons, the tax revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 460 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1996 in T.R.C. S.R. No. 2104 of 1996. It is, therefore, clear that in respect of the other appeal, no T.R.C. can be filed even with an application seeking condonation of delay. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction to the 1st respondent to refund the amount, the petitioner is entitled to, by virtue of the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 30, 1995 must succeed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and a writ of mandamus will issue directing the first respondent to refund the amount due to the petitioner-assessee, as per the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 717 and 718 of 1993 dated January 30, 1995 with simple interest at the rate of 12 per annum, calculated from July 29, 1995 till the date of payment. The above amount shall be paid as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than three months from to-day. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 459 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any justification, whatsoever, in the action taken by the Assistant Collector, Excise and Taxation in initiation of coercive process against the petitioner even when the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Higher Level Screening Committee is pending. 4.. We therefore, dispose of this writ petition by directing that within six weeks of the submission of the certified copy of this order, the Higher Level Screening Committee shall consider and pass necessary order on the representation of the petitioner and till the passing of the order by the Higher Level Screening Committee no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel on payment of requisite charges.
-
1996 (10) TMI 458 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... etc., due to noncollection of the same from the company at the right time. But such recovery will be according to law and should be restricted to the amounts not covered by the aforesaid bank guarantees and any other amounts that might be receivable by the company as rebate, discount, security deposit or of any other nature. 37.. The applications in RN-81 and 32 of 1996 are thus finally disposed of along with supplementary affidavits. All interim orders are vacated in both the cases except to the extent made absolute thus retained. No order is made as to costs. After the judgment is delivered, Mrs. Swapna Das, Mr. R. N. Das and Mr. Sumit Ghosh, learned advocates for SAIL, RINL and applicant-company respectively pray for stay of operation of the judgment and order. Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative, opposes the same. After hearing, the prayer for stay is rejected. K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member).-I agree. J. Gupta (Judicial Member).-I agree. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 457 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on 35 of the Act are two distinct and separate powers conferred on two separate authorities. The power under section 35 of the Act is conferred on its superior authority and therefore would not be an infringement of the power of assessing escaped turnover when the grounds for exercise of that power are existing, vitiating the proceedings as a result of subsequent escapement. The assessing authority could not have considered the situation as escapement is obviously postfacto as a result of inspection dated March 26, 1994. There is no error also because the position is well-settled by the above Full Bench decision of this Court. The tax revision case stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 456 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in clause (b) of sub-rule (7) of rule 28-A of the Act. The only ground, which impelled the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, to reject the application for renewal, is that the petitioner-firm had not obtained C forms for the inter-State sales made by it. There was no condition in the exemption certificate requiring the industrial unit to furnish C forms. Therefore, non-collection and non-furnishing of C forms cannot be treated to be a breach of any condition of the exemption certificate. 13.. In the result, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated December 29, 1993, and the order of the Commissioner, dated January 31, 1995, are found to be unsustainable in law and invalid. The rejection of the renewal application is held to be unjustified. The aforesaid orders are, therefore, cancelled and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and Taxation is directed to decide the renewal application of the petitioner-firm afresh in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 455 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... like proceedings which purport to be made in pursuance of any provision of this Act or the Rules shall not be quashed, or deemed to be void or voidable for want of form, or be affected by reason of a mistake, defect or omission therein, if the same is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and meaning of the Act and the Rules. (Emphasis added) 13.. Form S.T. 12 cannot obviously be a substitute for form S.T. 33, the provisions of section 19-A of RST Act notwithstanding. 14.. Both the notice dated May 2, 1988 such as it was and the order dated May 31, 1988 seek to incorporate the order of May 17, 1986 which stood cancelled in the order of April 13, 1988 were impermissible and illegal. It is a total misuse of section 17 of RST Act. 15.. The revision is accepted and the orders dated March 13, 1995, March 2, 1989 and May 31, 1988 of the Board, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the respondent are set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 454 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... affect proceedings. If it is taken that the proceedings before the petitioner were under section 12 of the RST Act as the record itself seems to indicate then the issue and service of a notice in the prescribed form was mandatory for the petitioner to get jurisdiction and section 19A, RST Act is to no avail as has been held in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kistoor Mal Gulab Chand 1993 88 STC 21 (Raj) and in Braham Dutt v. Sales Tax Officer (1968) II TR 61. There is a specific finding of the Board that the notice was not in the prescribed form. 10.. If the proceedings are taken to be merely one of compulsory registration under section 6, RST Act and penalty for failure to get registered then too in the absence of any proof on the record against the petitioner he could not be implicated. 11.. Therefore, looked at from any angle it must be said that the Board determined the matter correctly. 12.. The application for revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 453 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce in regard thereto. The authorities would have kept out of their mind that the assessee though a jeweller in the yellow metal and white metal has been accepted by the department in regard to all that is stated not far off but in the previous year itself. As compared to the previous year, he had shown taxable turnover at five times in comparison. In our judgment, the facts do not warrant rejection of accounts much less the consequent resort to estimation on best judgment. 12.. For all the above reasons, we quash and set aside all the three orders, viz., the order dated December 29, 1989 (annexure I), the order dated May 8, 1990 (annexure II) and the order dated December 8, 1993 (annexure III) and consequently direct the appellate authority to proceed with the assessment on the basis of the total turnover at Rs. 11,18,792.05 as returned by the petitioner-assessee in form 8 in the matter of the assessment year 1988-89. The revision case succeeds accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the statutory provisions of section 5A relating to levy of purchase tax would make the situation more abundantly clear. The above statutory provision refers to every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a registered dealer or from any other person any goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act and this liability, by virtue of section 5(2A) comes under the clutches of the liability in the event of total turnover exceeding Rs. 50,00,000 during the assessment year in question. 10.. In other words, the statutory provisions govern taxability of the assessee before us, basically by virtue of the statutory provision that even any person concerned with supply or distribution would have to be understood as a dealer with reference to the liability under the tax. The position is already settled by Cardamom Planters Association s case 1987 67 STC 294 (Ker). For all the above reasons, the revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 451 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bly wrong that it required interference and substitution of that of the Sales Tax Officer. In our judgment in the matter of discretion the views of the first appellate authority do not require interference unless the use of discretion could be said to be leaning more on the side of being capricious in the context. Interference would be an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. The appellate authority has not given such reasons to justify the interference, in the matter of rejection. For the above reasons we do not find that the order of the first appellate authority should have been interfered with in the manner in which it has been done. Tax revision case succeeds. Impugned order dated December 14, 1992 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam (annexure III) gets quashed and set aside and instead the order dated February 20, 1989 (annexure II) gets restored. The Sales Tax Officer-II, Changanacherry is directed to act accordingly. Petition allowed.
........
|
