|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 241 Records
-
1984 (11) TMI 296 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty having remained unpaid prior to 1st January, 1971 no interest can be charged on the said amount and the notice in respect of Rs. 3,106 is liable to be quashed. 9.. The submission of Mr. Pasayat for directing collection of the amount of Rs. 3,653.31 by the Tax Recovery Officer in instalments is not contrary to any provision in the statute. Taking into consideration the long period for which the tax has remained unpaid and the adverse financial condition of the petitioner, ends of justice would be best served in case the petitioner is allowed to pay Rs. 1,000 by the end of December, 1984, Rs. 1,000 by the end of January, 1985 and the balance amount by the end of February, 1985. In case any amount remains unpaid by the end of February, 1985 the same shall be recovered by coercive process as indicated in the Schedule to the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 10.. In the result, this writ application is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. PATNAIK, J.-I agree.
-
1984 (11) TMI 295 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l sales tax on Jai Kajal , after the said decision and they have also not collected sales tax on the basis that Jai Kajal falls under entry 38 of the said notification. Moreover, in view of the pending reference their assessments from the assessment year starting from 1st July, 1968 have been kept open. In these circumstances there is no doubt that the respondents are in a situation which can be described as somewhat unenviable-to put it mildly. We cannot, however, decline to answer the reference on that ground. 10.. In the present case we are not called upon to decide whether Jai Kajal is a medicine covered by entry 38 of the said notification. We have only to consider whether it will fall under entry 19 of Schedule E or under the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. For the reasons which we have set out, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the respondents and against the Department. The applicants will pay to the respondents costs of the reference.
-
1984 (11) TMI 294 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e are in respectful agreement with the approach made in Pulpally 1977 40 STC 350 on this aspect. The distinction between trees only planted and trees of spontaneous growth was not considered in Kottamullai Tea Co. 1975 36 STC 499 (App) (T.R.C. Nos. 64 and 65 of 1971) or T.R.C. No. 34 of 1973 apparently, the point was not argued. A conflict requiring resolution by a larger Bench is not involved on this point also. 6. To satisfy the element of sale as understood in explanation (1) to section 2(xxi) also, the timber must be produced by the seller. What has been said in connection with section 2(viii)(e) applies equally to the aforesaid explanation. 7.. All that is necessary to add is that we have not taken into account the amendments made to section 2(vii) and section 2(viii)(e) by Act 19 of 1980 and Act 21 of 1978 respectively, because the transactions involved in these revisions were of earlier years. The revisions are accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 293 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ansaction of sale by it to its purchasers, but the amounts which it had to pay to the manufacturers to reimburse them for the sales tax payable by them. In our view, this contention is also unsustainable. The relevant words used, as set out earlier, by the applicant in its bills would, in our opinion, clearly suggest to the purchasers to whom the bills were issued that the amount in question was being collected as sales tax or on account of sales tax, namely, sales tax which was payable under the said Act by the applicant on the sale to its customers. The said expression could not have been reasonably used to convey that the amount was being collected to reimburse the applicant for the amount which it had paid on account of reimbursement of sales tax to the manufacturers who supplied the soap. 7.. In the premises, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the applicant. 8.. The applicant to pay the costs of this reference to the respondentdealer.
-
1984 (11) TMI 292 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has been demanded for the entire month for which tax has been paid during the course of the said month, the demand is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority for computing the interest payable in accordance with our decision rendered above. W.P. No. 11202 of 1983 Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has become infructuous. Hence this petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. W.A. No. 1030 of 1984 In view of the decision rendered in the above cases, W.P. No. 6320 of 1984 itself is allowed and this appeal is infructuous. 45.. We may make it clear that we have decided these matters only on legal issues with regard to the validity of section 24(3) and the scope of rule 18(3) of the Rules. Any rejection of the cases of the respective petitioners does not affect the merits of the contentions which they have raised or they are entitled to raise in such proceedings as may be pending either in this Court or before any other authorities.
-
1984 (11) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act challenged - Held that:- As satisfied that section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was within the competence of the Punjab Legislature and that it was not also otherwise invalid in any manner. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 284 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Persons resident outside India, Restrictions on payments ... ... ... ... ..... concerned in this case is not correct at all. It is then argued by learned counsel for the appellant that if payment of hat money is not allowed to be paid to the captains of the ships, it would adversely and injuriously affect the Indian trade and economy and militates against the well recognised practices of international trade. There is no absolute bar on this type of payments under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. All that is wanted is that those firms who want to pay hat money and other payments must get the previous permission of the Reserve Bank of India. If the Reserve Bank of India is convinced that, if such payments are prevented, the trade of Indian companies will be adversely affected, it will certainly alloy and permit some moneys to be paid towards this type of payments. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant is also not of much substance. In the result, I see no merit in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 283 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... e, it cannot be said that the object for which the company was incorporated has substantially failed and it is still open to the company to achieve the said objects. Nor can it be said that the company would not be able to carry on its business except at a loss. It cannot also be said that the assets of the company are insufficient to meet its liabilities because, as pointed out earlier, the assets of the company consist of three farms and the present value of the fixed assets of the company is much more than their book value. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to hold that the substratum of the company has been lost and it would be just and equitable that the company should be wound up. In the result, neither of the two grounds on the basis of which the petitioner has sought the winding up of the company is established. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 282 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... as. 875 (P. and H.) and C. P. No. 87 of 1982 (Stepan Chemicals Ltd., In re and Warden and Co. ( India) P. Ltd., In re mdash 1987 61 Comp. Cas. 358 (P. and H.) (Appendix) (infra) decided on July 20, 1984, and August 17, 1984, respectively. These decisions, in our view, are on the facts of those cases and cannot be relied upon, especially when it has been found as a fact that the appellant is liable to pay interest. It is also contended by learned counsel that a second petition for winding up did not lie in the wake of the dismissal of the earlier petition. This contention is liable to be rejected on the short ground that no such plea was raised before the learned single judge. Even otherwise, this plea is without any merit, as the earlier petition was dismissed as having become in fructuous, as the amount had been paid. No other point is urged. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (11) TMI 260 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... eeting for the previous year unless, of course, the period was extended by the Registrar under section 166(1) of the Act. Judged in the light of the above three decisions, we find that the annual general meeting was initially held within the stipulated time and the adjourned meeting was held within 15 months as envisaged under section 166(1) of the Act. It must be said, therefore, that the annual general meeting for the year in question was held by the latest day on or before which that meeting should have been held in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since in that meeting the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company were laid and since they were sent to the Registrar of Companies within 7 days thereof, there was no violation of the provision of section 220(1) of the Act. It must, therefore, be held that the instant prosecution is not maintainable. We, therefore, allow this application and quash the proceeding. Sankar Bhattacharyya, J. mdash I agree.
-
1984 (11) TMI 259 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... building is put up for sale and not otherwise. In so far as the third submission is concerned, it is true that respondent No. 1 has been in occupation of the premises for a considerable period and there would be hardship caused to him if he is asked to vacate, but, on the other hand, what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that respondent No. 1 has been in occupation of the premises for a considerable period, without a title and has kept the official liquidator out of the premises for a period of about five years and ten months and it is about time that the premises are restored to the official liquidator to enable him to get on with the liquidation proceedings, which, of course, stand hindered by such a controversy. The premises in question are not residential but then some time must now be granted to enable respondent No. 1 to vacate the same. In view of this, the official liquidator is directed not to take possession of the premises for a period of eight weeks from today.
-
1984 (11) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Penalty for wrongful withholding of property ... ... ... ... ..... f any, and he should not suppress any important fact having a bearing on the question involved in the petition. If the petitioner had already filed a petition on the same subject-matter for the same reliefs and for one reason or the other withdrew it, he must faithfully mention those facts in the petition. Those facts are necessary for the court to decide whether the subsequent petition on the same subject for the same reliefs should or should not be entertained. Though I find that the petitioner should have mentioned the fact of his having filed a similar petition earlier and withdrawal thereof in this petition, I do not think that the said default on the part of the petitioner should be visited with the dismissal of the petition on that ground. I have earlier found that the petition is not maintainable on merits. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner accused shall pay the costs of respondent No. 1, complainant, and bear his own.
-
1984 (11) TMI 243 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... isposition notwithstanding the opposition of a contributory, unless the contributory had adduced compelling evidence which proved that the dispostion was likely to injure the company. It further ruled that the court would not, except in the case of proven bad faith or other exceptional circumstances, interfere with the discretion conferred on the directors by a company s articles of association at the instance of a contributory, even if a winding-up petition had been presented. We should note here that there are no objections raised by any shareholder or creditor against the directions which have been sought for. As a matter of fact, as stated above, the directions are very much necessary in the interest of keeping the company as a going concern so as to ensure further and serve further the interest of the shareholders, creditors and the workers. For the reasons aforesaid, we have exercised our discretion in issuing the directions as specified in our order dated July 3, 1984.
-
1984 (11) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... on of the position and to decide whether it is required to be admitted and whether further directions after admission are required to be given. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the winding-up petition is set aside. The winding-up petition will stand restored to the company judge who will proceed with the same at the stage it was on July 11, 1984, when the impugned order, which we have set aside, was passed. It will be open to the respondents, if so advised, to file affidavits opposing admission and to advance for the consideration of the company judge such contentions as may be available regarding the principal amount claimed in exhibit A to the petition and mentioned in the statutory notice. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of the appeal. In view of this appellate order, there will be no order on the Notice of Motion No. 2131 of 1984. The parties will bear their own costs of the said motion.
-
1984 (11) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption subject to goods meeting prescribed specifications ... ... ... ... ..... not conform to the specifications in respect of colour. It is remarkable, in fact, that so many consignments should pass in all specifications and fail in the same test, colour. There is no doubt in our minds that the tests were carried properly and were conducted in accordance with scientific principles and that there was nothing wrong in the findings of the laboratory. If anything the convergence of the test results for all the samples enforces our belief that no fault can be found with the manner of testing. 45. emsp One of the importers argued that the notice of the government to review the Appellate Collector rsquo s finding was improper because it was issued on the recommendation of the Collector. We can see nothing in the procedure to vitiate the notice. The only thing that will vitiate it is evidence that the notice issuing authority was not satisfied in the manner prescribed by law. Such evidence has not been placed before us and we, therefore, reject this argument.
-
1984 (11) TMI 213 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... visions of law. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Limited v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, does not help either. Actually, the Tribunal has observed ldquo Moreover it is not every levy or collection of duty in excess of the permissible limit that becomes straightaway an illegal exaction and hence refundable. It is only if the levy was altogether without jurisdiction ab initio or in excess of jurisdiction that it becomes illegal. Therefore, where the alleged erroneous determination of the duty payable did not result from either want of jurisdiction or acting in excess of jurisdiction, the period of limitation under Section 27 ibid would be applicable. The claim has, therefore, been rightly rejected under Section 27 ibid by the authorities below. rdquo 10. In the circumstances we find that the order of rejection of the claims as barred by limitation is based on the facts of the case and is maintainable in law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 212 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... wever, in respect of penalty of Rs. 25/000/-(Rupees twenty-five thousand) only, we feel that if the stay is not granted to the appellant the appellant shall suffer undue hardship. The appellant has filed stay petition duly supported with an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate. The bona fide of the appellant should not be doubted. The revenue has not filed any counter affidavit or has not produced any evidence as to the appellant rsquo s financial status. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit (Rupees ten thousand) only in cash within six weeks from the date of this order. For the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- the appellant is directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 15,000/- to the satisfaction of the lower authorities within six weeks from the date of this order. The appellant is further directed to report the compliance of this order to the Registry. In case the appellant fails to comply with the terms of this order the stay shall stand automatically vacated.
-
1984 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Synthetic waste imported ... ... ... ... ..... 263/84D relating to Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., and is rejected in the same terms. (iv) Appeal Nos. 576/84-D to 589/84-D These 14 supplementary appeals are similar to the 24 supplementary appeals Nos. 552/84-D to 575/84-D relating to Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., and are rejected in the same terms. MESSRS GANDHARAV TRADING and INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. (i) Appeal No. 249/84-D This appeal is similar to appeal No. 248/84-D relating to Messrs Punjab Processors Ltd., and is rejected in the same terms. (ii) Appeal No. 261/84-D This appeal is similar to appeal No. 263/84-D relating to Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., and is rejected in the same terms. 25. In the result, all the 44 appeals before us stand rejected, the appropriate assessing authority being at liberty in each case to take further action in pursuance of the directions contained in para 19.0 of the Order of the Collector (Appeals), without being bound by the Collector rsquo s observations elsewhere in the Order.
-
1984 (11) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Methyl Aceto Acetate ... ... ... ... ..... obviously be not correct to say that the portion of the said chemical used by dyestuff and other non-drug industries should also be given the exemption which under the law is available only lsquo drug intermediates rsquo . rdquo 8. We are in fully agreement with these observations of the Government of India as far as this product i.e., Methyl Aceto Acetate is concerned. Though it has many other uses but there is no denial of the fact that it is used by the appellants in the manufacture of their bulk durg Analgin I.P. and, therefore, we feel no hesitation in holding that the imported goods, that is, Methyl Aceto Acetate are drug intermediates for the purpose of Exemption Notification No. 55/75 C.E., dated 1-3-1975 and that the benefit of this Exemption Notification should be extended to these goods to the extent they are used by the appellants for the manufacture of Analgin I.P. and the Assistant Collector is satisfied in this behalf. We accept both these Appeals accordingly.
-
1984 (11) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... in, we agree that the term lsquo compulsory supply rsquo must relate to the functions intended to be performed by the machine. If the imported parts are essential for the functions to be performed and the supply is made along with the original machine, it should be considered as a compulsory supply. Even though from the point of view of the Suppliers, the supply is made optional as he has not to decide as to what are the functions to be performed by the machine required by the purchaser. Again, on the question of price being included in the price of the article, we agree with the Appellate Collector that we cannot ignore the trade practice in view of computerisation of documents, which normally must detail part-wise break-up of the total price charged for the goods supplied. A decision on this factor cannot be taken in isolation but in the background of the facts of the case. 8. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the Appellate Collector of Customs and dismiss the appeals.
........
|
