|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 479 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 642 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xtent of tax paid under this Act. (2) Where an importer who not being dealer in motor vehicle has purchased a motor vehicle for his own use from any other State or Union Territory then his liability under this Act shall subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be reduced to the extent of the amount of tax paid if any, under the general sales tax law in force in that State or Union Territory. But that does not absolve the person who has imported goods into the local area from paying the entry tax. Obligation to pay such a tax in view of the provisions contained in section 3 of the Entry Tax Act is mandatory. If he fails to do so he becomes defaulter and all legal actions to recover the tax due can be taken against him. However, if he has sold the imported vehicles, his sales tax liability is liable to be reduced to the extent of entry tax paid. 21.. For the reasons given above, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. A.K. PRASAD, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 641 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ttled according to the relevant provisions of law prevailing on the date. Subsequent amendment, if any shall not change its nature unless the amending Act/Rules make express provisions otherwise. In the instant case, the amended rule does not expressly touch the nature of the existing right. Hence, it cannot be said that because of new rule 99 the applicant is entitled to 7-years tax holiday even though the first sale of the unit s product took place before the amended rules 99 came into force. It cannot, therefore, be said that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 erred in refusing to grant the applicant the E.C. valid for 7 years. The mistake committed by the respondent No. 1 in initially granting E.C. for 3 years has already been rectified. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In the result, the application is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 640 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... t No. 3 that while passing his orders after consideration of objections or representations, if any, submitted by the applicants, if he decides that the order or orders of respondent No. 2 dated May 6, 1994 are to be revised, he will be at liberty to do so but in case he sets aside those orders, he himself will not reopen the relevant deemed assessments. In that case, he will remit the matter or matters to respondent No. 2 for fresh disposal, according to law. The reason why we are giving this direction, is that deemed assessments under section 11E(1) cannot be reopened except only in terms of section 11E(2), and deemed assessments, as already said, are not revisable in exercise of powers under section 20(3)(a) of the 1941 Act. 12.. The applications in RN-95, 96 and 97 of 1997 are thus finally disposed of by this common judgment. No order is made for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Applications disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 639 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ecutive authority cannot issue a notification retrospectively affecting the concession enjoyed by the assessee unless the power is specifically conferred on the authority. 5.. Taking into consideration of all these aspects the provision of law, and also the view of various High Courts it is clear that the erratas published after April 1, 1990 cannot affect or have the retrospective effect, as to the vested rights, enjoyed by the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90. Therefore the T.Ps. are to be allowed. Accordingly both T.Ps. are allowed, declaring that the benefits conferred under the notification dated May 9, 1988 were not affected by the issuance of the errata published on July 25, 1990 and May 29, 1991. There will be no order to cost. 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 dated 27th November, 1998. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 638 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... justification for the Tribunal to refuse to admit that document. It may be said that the revisionist-applicant could not indicate sufficient reasons in his application and the affidavit for producing the additional evidence earlier but at least it was said that the required form was not available and when it was available or it could be made available, it was filed. The said allegation remained unrebutted, hence the form III-C should have been admitted by the Tribunal, and thereafter it may call upon the taxing authority to file evidence in rebuttal . 11.. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the revision is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 30-...-1994 is set aside. The case is remitted to the Tribunal under section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Tribunal after admitting the document form III-C(Ga), as evidence, will give an opportunity to the respondent to file evidence in rebuttal, and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 637 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... relates to the shortage in the weight of the prawns intended for export and the assessees are entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the deficit quantity also. In other aspects the order of the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed. In T.C.R. No. 330 of 1997 the order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside in respect of the deficiency intended for export quantity and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer to find out the actual probable wastage as ascertained from the materials gathered from the assessee. The assessee is entitled to the exemption of that quantity only and the balance will attract the purchase tax. The tax revision cases are disposed of in the above manner. 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 17th day of November, 1998. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 636 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not to frustrate it. 23.. In the light of what is stated above, I hold that the sugar factory set up at Tirumandankudi, Papanasam taluk, is a new industry and undoubtedly, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under Government Order Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990. The contrary view taken by the first respondent in their order dated November 8, 1996 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent dated November 8, 1996 is quashed consequently the first respondent is directed to issue eligibility certificate to the new unit of the petitioner s establishment at Tirumandankudi, Papanasam taluk, Thanjavur district, under paragraph 3 of G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14. 1990 by way of full waiver of sales tax for a period of five years as per their application dated November 19, 1991 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 635 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ad also found it impossible to levy tax at 2 per cent in view of item 24B as it exists, so he had recommended an amendment to item 24B. Clearly this Court will not be within its power to direct amendment. 16.. For the reasons given above, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Unless and until an amendment is carried to item 24B no relief can be granted to the petitioners and the amendment of the statute is not within the powers of this Court. Hence the relief claimed by on this account cannot be granted by the Court. 17.. With these observations the writ petitions are partly allowed and the Government order dated September 16, 1997 is quashed. No order as to costs. 18.. There shall be suspension of the order for a period of four weeks from the date hereof. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties with utmost expedition. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to act accordingly. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 634 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 36 of the Act can be exercised in the interest of the State as well as the assessee, and the provisions are so designed as to entrust with the superior authority the duty to correct the wrong committed by the subordinate officers while exercising the powers under this Act. In my opinion, the above remedies are efficacious enough to take care of the dispute between the parties which arose out of the notice dated March 28, 1996. Therefore, the case laws cited at the Bar, when considered with the revisional powers of the superior authority, impels this Court to declare that the writ petition has been premature. 16.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay order granted by this Court on April 11, 1996 stands vacated. The assessing officer may proceed and determine the tax liability of the petitioner-company in accordance with the decision above after giving an opportunity to the petitioner-company of being heard. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 633 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ala Tax on Luxuries Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Kerala High Court however held that the levy is in violation of article 301 of the Constitution and are not saved under article 304(b) of the Constitution. 80.. The same reasoning which we have given while considering the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Kamadgiri Agencies case (unreported) applies as the inter-State transactions of supply of tobacco is exempt from the provisions of the Luxury Tax Act. 81.. In the light of the above, we uphold the validity of the Luxury Tax Act as amended 6y Act No. 28 of 1996 and Act No. 9 of 1997 as the A.P. State Legislature is competent to enact Luxury Tax Act Nos. 28 of 1996 and 9 of I 997 under entry 62 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are, therefore, have no merits and they are dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 632 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a different view of the claim made by the assessee. 19.. As a result of aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative by holding that the Tribunal did error in confirming the order of levy of interest under the provisions of section 47(4-A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, inasmuch as there is no dispute that tax payable as per the return filed by the assessee has been paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 47, within the time allowed and the tax has also been paid on assessment by the date specified in the notice of demand by the assessee. The assessee being not liable to pay interest on the basis of assessed tax by treating it to be the tax payable on return, the liability to pay interest in this case cannot arise under sub-section (4-A) of section 47 as it stood at the relevant time. The reference accordingly stands disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 631 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s case 1998 108 STC 258. 4.. We are afraid, it is not possible for us to do so because the issues raised is identical M.C.C. No. 218 of 1994 Vora Wires v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1997 106 STC 286 (MP) and 225 of 1994 stand already concluded finally with the dismissal of S.L.P. No. CC 466 of 1997 taken by the Revenue against the judgment of this Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to reopen the matter which stood already concluded by the Supreme Court. It is open to the Revenue to seek some other remedy in the matter in case they feel convinced that the Supreme Court judgment in Anwar s case 1998 108 STC 258 had any bearing in the matter. 5.. This M.C.C. is accordingly disposed of by providing that the questions stated therein would be deemed answered in the light of the answers given by this Court in M.C.C. No. 218 of 1994 Vora Wires v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP 1997 106 STC 286, and shall disposed of accordingly. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 630 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the limit as provided under section 4 of the Act. More particularly, as in the case in hand, application under section 9-A was really pending with the Revenue. 14.. In the case in hand, application under section 9-A was filed and due to delay on the part of Revenue, the petitioner could not collect tax. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to pay tax for the period prior to the date on which registration certificate was received by the assessee. We have already stated that Commissioner has held that no penalty shall be imposed for the period prior to the grant of registration certificate. 15.. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the petitioner shall be liable to pay tax from the date when registration certificate was received by him and not from the earlier date as he had no right to collect tax in view of section 9-C of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. P.K. Tripathy, J.-I agree. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 629 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... able to pay tax, notwithstanding that goods and event are both taxable. That is further indicative of the fact that unless a dealer is at all liable to pay tax, notwithstanding that event is taxable as suggested by learned counsel for the assessee, where dealer is not liable to pay tax, he is not entitled to benefit of drawback, set-off or refund. 20.. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that assessee was not a dealer who was liable to pay tax on sale of cooked food as supplies to its customers for the period in question within the meaning of rule 47(1)(A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim drawback, set-off or refund of tax paid on purchase made of raw material or consumable stores. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, that is to say, in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in affirmative.
-
1998 (11) TMI 628 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on, that the respondents could not have ignored the declarations, as submitted by the petitioner with regard to the sales effected to M/s. Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. and Dhar Cement Pvt. Ltd. between the period commencing from November 5, 1983 to October 24, 1984. The impugned orders, in so far as, they rejected the petitioner s prayer for grant of exemption in computation of the total taxable liability stands, hereby quashed. The necessary consequence of this, would be that the penalty which has been imposed on account of refusal to accept the declarations, would automatically stand quashed. The matter has necessarily to be remitted to respondent No. 1, for giving effect and passing an order of assessment afresh, in the light of the observations made above. 23.. The petition, therefore, stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. Parties to bear their own cost. Security cost, if, deposited, be refunded back to the petitioner, after its due verification. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 627 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oceeding against the mortgaged property. A guarantor can be sued without even suing the principal debtor. Creditor s liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. 11.. In view of the above, the petitioner s plea is found to have some force. The respondents can proceed to recover the amount of tax dues from the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 50,000 only. It is for the respondents to see that the amount of tax dues can be recovered from the other partners or not. From the facts, which have come on the record, it appears that the respondents have not made serious efforts, for the reasons best known to them, for the recovery of the tax dues from the erstwhile partners of M/s. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills. 12.. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner except to the extent of the recovery of Rs. 50,000, the amount of the surety bond executed by the petitioner. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 626 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an also be applied as the entry of machinery is a general entry the special entry of electrical and electronic machinery would stand excluded therefrom. Order There was no notification effective from April 1, 1994 providing for levy of entry tax on electrical and electronic goods till March 31, 1997. In these circumstances there could be no liability of entry tax on electrical and electronic goods and appliances, instruments and apparatus and parts and accessories thereof till that period. In cases where notices have been issued, the parties would be free to file their objections stating the correct legal position and the assessing authority would pass the orders after hearing the petitioners and taking into consideration the observation made above. In respect of the assessment order or penalty order if any tax is levied between the period April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1997 that shall stand quashed. Petitions stand disposed of with the above observations. Petitions disposed of.
-
1998 (11) TMI 625 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e reason or cause. The counter-affidavit does not explain the reasons except to say that the Government has a power to withdraw the exemption. Inasmuch as no reasons have been given for the withdrawal of the exemption we hold that G.O. P. No. 645 dated June 30, 1986 cannot have retrospective operation but will be given effect to, only in prospective manner. We therefore, allow the writ petition (T.P.) and hold that the respondent cannot give retrospective effect to G.O. P. No. 645 dated June 30, 1986 and direct the respondent to withdraw any demand for payment of tax based on such retrospective operation of G.O. P. No. 645 dated June 30, 1986. The writ petition (T.P) is allowed in the above manner and there will be no orders as to cost. 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 13th day of November, 1998. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 624 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... per cent per annum under the presumption that the imposed tax has been utilised by the assessee. Thus, no doubt, we can impose interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum but not for the period during which order of stay is operative, i.e., from November 20, 1980 till the date of delivery of the judgment because payability of tax is arrested by court s order. Thus interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum shall be charged from the date of demand notice dated September 9, 1980 to November 19, 1980 and from the date of delivery of this judgment onwards till the date of payment, which shall be calculated and worked out accordingly at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and be charged and realised from the petitioner. 41.. In view of the foregoing discussions, no other point remains to be discussed. In view of our foregoing conclusions, we are of the opinion that these two petitions have no merit, which are accordingly dismissed. S.K. SINGH, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 623 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d have issued the notification retrospectively or prospectively after February 11, 1993 and no objection could have been taken for such a notification. It is settled by series of decisions of the apex Court that the Parliament has the power to make the law prospective or retrospective. In case of retrospective amendment it has, to be seen whether it is unreasonable or violative of any provisions of the Constitution, etc. Act No. 8 of 1993 while specifically providing that it shall come into force from September 30, 1992 has taken note of the ordinance No. 13 of 1992 and since the notification was issued by the delegated authority on the basis of the proposed amendment in section 3, the effect would be that Act No. 8 of 1993 has validated the action of the delegatory authority in the notification which have been issued between September 30, 1992 and February 11, 1993. In view of this position, writ petitions having no force are accordingly dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
........
|
