|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 456 Records
-
1999 (2) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n (1) of Section 87 only. This being the intention of the legislature, effect must be given to it ungrudgingly. Therefore, Section 85(1) which deals with surrender of excess land in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date (1.1.1970) cannot be applied in cases falling under Section 87 of the Act whereunder land is deemed to be acquired after that date. In the instant case, exemption of the land under Section 81(l)(k) which was in force on 1.1.1970, ceased with effect from August 10,1982. So in view of Explanation I to Section 87 of the Act there will be a deemed acquisition of that land after 1.1.1970. The High Court is, therefore, right in holding that the Taluk Land Board cannot again initiate proceeding under section 85 of the Act and determine ceiling area as on 1.1.1970. For the abovementioned reasons, we find no illegality in the order of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. But having regard to the facts of the case we make no order as to costs.
-
1999 (2) TMI 667 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unless preserved/maintained it evaporates with the dismissal of the case in which it was passed. 10. In fairness we also put on record that Sri Murlidhar, the learned Senior Counsel also attempted to make a distinction with reference to the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and the provisions of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 which we have deliberately omitted, inasmuch as from the consideration of the provisions of Forest Act and the Rules framed therein there is no doubt in our mind that even factory produced 'kattha' or 'catechu' is a forest produce within the meaning of the Act. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, but without costs. 12. The Court/authorities are directed to proceed further in accordance with law. 13. The office is directed to serve two Xerox copies of this order by 12th March, 1999 on Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for its communications to the Court and the authorities concerned both.
-
1999 (2) TMI 666 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ch no satisfactory explanation is given. Hence, the Civil Appeals are dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 665 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ti, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 664 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such direction, adjustments, be made firstly in payment of interest and costs and thereafter in payment of the principal amount. Such a principle is, however, subject to one exception, i.e. that the parties may agree to the adjustment of the payment in any other manner despite the decree. As and when such an agreement is pleaded, the onus of proving is always upon the person pleading the agreement contrary to the general rule or the terms of the decree schedule. The provisions of Sections 59 to 61 of the Contract Act are applicable in cases where a debtor owes several distinct debts to one person and do not deal with cases in which the principal and interest are due on a single debt. Under the circumstances, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and by upholding the order of the executing court. The appellant is also entitled to costs throughout.
-
1999 (2) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t justified in disallowing the claim of the appellant for ₹ 20,000 on account of damages as expected profit out of the contract which was found to have been illegally rescinded. The appellate court further slashed the other claims of the appellant and held him entitled to the payment of ₹ 4,783.33 only. The learned counsel for the appellant has been very fair to concede that such finding returned by the appellate court is reasonable and that the appellant would not insist upon the payment of further amount and be satisfied with the amount decreed by the High Court in addition to the sum of ₹ 20,000 claimed as damages. Under the circumstances this appeal is partly allowed modifying the judgment decrees of the courts below and holding the appellant plaintiff entitled to the grant of decree to the extent of ₹ 24,783.33 with future interest at 6 per annum payable from the date of decree till realization. The parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.
-
1999 (2) TMI 662 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to whom, those forms were actually issued, had to say about their use. There is also nothing in the orders of the authorities below to indicate that the parties whose names and addresses have been mentioned in the Tribunal's order were non - existent and any attempt was made to contact them. There is also nothing in the orders of the authorities below to indicate that there was anything apparent in those forms which showed that they were not genuine and were manipulated or interepolated. In other words, there is no finding by the authorities below that in accepting the form in question there was any negligence on the part of the revisionist or that it did not act bona fide. In the absence of such a finding a dealer cannot be denied the benefit of the forms in question because he has not charged sales tax from the parties concerned." 9. There is thus, no error in the findings of the lower appellate authorities. The revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 661 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
-
1999 (2) TMI 660 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... question raised by the respondents is that this court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Company Law Board, No doubt it is ordinarily not open to the appellate court to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial Judge. However it is equally established that if the trial court had acted unreasonably or capaciously or had ignored relevant facts or has adopted an approach which is incorrect, as we have found in this case, the appellate court not only is empowered but is under a duty to interfere that the exercise of discretion by the trial court See The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph ; Regular of Trade Marks v. Ashoke Chandra Rakshit . 86. For the reasons stated the appeal is allowed and the order of the Company Law Board is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Company Law Board for re-deciding the application in the light of the observations contained in this Judgment. There will be no order as to costs. 87. Appeal allowed
-
1999 (2) TMI 659 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
-
1999 (2) TMI 658 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e appeal is neither reasonable nor satisfactory. Even on merits, we do not find any reason to interfere. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits.
-
1999 (2) TMI 657 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... the agent and the sale of a particular Redrow home, although if it were necessary then this condition too would be satisfied on the facts of the present case. From the taxpayer 39 s standpoint, which is what matters, the agent 39 s fees incurred in the sale of a prospective purchaser 39 s own home are not part of the taxpayer 39 s general overhead costs but a necessary cost of and exclusively attributable to the sale of a Redrow home to that same purchaser. If the sale of the Redrow home were an exempt supply and not merely zero-rated, the agent 39 s fees would not be deductible for the reasons given by the Court of Justice in the B.L.P. Group Plc. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-4/94) 1996 1 W.L.R. 174. I would allow the appeal and affirm the decision of the value added tax tribunal. Appeal allowed with costs in Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Solicitors Trowers and Hamlins for Solicitor, Redrow Group Services Ltd., Mold Solicitor for the Customs and Excise.
-
1999 (2) TMI 656 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emption without leaving any scope for ambiguity. Equitable considerations cannot come in the way of interpretation of a taxing statute. The court is to look straight at the words of the statute and interpret them. The court is to interpret the statute in the light of the words clearly expressed. It cannot import anything which is not expressed. As said by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Martand Dairy and Farm v. Union of India, reported in 1975 35 STC 629 (SC) (relevant page 631) AIR 1975 SC 1492 (relevant page 1494)- taxation considerations may stem from administrative experience and other factors of life and not artistic visualisation or neat logic and so the literal, though pedestrian, interpretation must prevail . On overall consideration of the matter and for the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The interim order(s) stand(s) vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 655 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... , but actually as per the available materials the assessee had right to dispose of the goods, and further there are two transactions out of which the second one is also liable to tax and thereby we could interfere within the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Hence the order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the order of first appellate authority which confirmed the order of the assessing authority is restored. Hence the assessee is liable to pay tax for (second transaction) on a turnover of Rs. 19,41,609 at the rate of 5 per cent (multi-point) and consequently liable to pay surcharge, additional surcharge and additional sales tax as ordered by the first appellate authority. In the result, the tax revision petitions are allowed. 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 February, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 654 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pply to the facts of this case too ......Several taxing enactments contain provisions for composition of tax liability which may sometimes be in the interest of both the Revenue and the assessees. It must also be remembered that in the field of taxation, the Legislature must be allowed greater play in the joints as it is called. Allowance must also be made for trial and error by the Legislature, as has been held in R.K. Garg v. Union of India 1982 133 ITR 239 (SC) (1981) 4 SCC 675. The registered dealers form a separate class and they can avail of the option. Whereas the petitioners are all dealers unregistered and they form different class inasmuch as even if they seek option they may have to take out registration and hence the question of discrimination does not arise. For all these reasons, I hold that the amended provision is valid. The original petitions are dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 37026 of 1998 in O.P. No. 20983 of 1998-W dismissed. Original petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 653 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... Act, when the goods were detained at the check-post. As there were proper documents at the time of check of goods at the check-post, there is no case to invoke section 46(1)(a) to levy compounding fee. Therefore the order of the second revisional authority in justifying the levy of compounding fee to the extent of Rs. 1,05,432 is quashed and the amount is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner. 5.. It is open to the assessing authority to take action separately, if there was any sale of goods which attracts tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in pursuance of the receipt of goods in question in Chennai on the basis of documents available in this case. With this observation, the original petition is allowed as indicated supra. 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 8th day of February, 1999. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 652 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... agree with this argument. The Supreme Court has categorically stated that the right of parties had crystallised at the time when the proceedings are initiated at the first instance. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court any restrictions, that is, placed on the party by way of an onerous condition would prejudice the party and cannot be countenanced. In view of the clear and categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are right in contending that in respect of their appeals before the Appellate Tribunal the fees which were prevalent before Tamil Nadu Act 78 of 1986 should alone be applicable. The T.Ps. are 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 pronounced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 5th day of February, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 651 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... otton or hemp. Cotton is not a fibre obtained from a plant. Cotton is a flower on a plant. Cloth can be made out of cotton, synthetic or silk and the like. If we accept the argument that the bags made out of cloth are taxable, then, the respondents have to put to tax the bags made out of cloth and not out of cotton as cloth can be made out of cotton, silk, synthetic and the like which does not seem to be the intention of the Legislature. 14.. Tribunal was not right in holding that words namely and and the like are only illustrative and not exhaustive to subject cotton cloth bags to tax under the Act. Tribunal was further not right in holding that the expression namely and and the like will have the meaning such as . 15.. For the reason stated above, the petitions are accepted. Order of the authorities below is set aside and it is held that bags made out of cotton cloth were not exigible to entry tax under entry 16-A(v) of the Schedule to the Act. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 650 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... to be examined by the assessing authority before arriving refund to the petitioners. 22.. In fine we hold that the orders of assessment impugned in these petitions have to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. We hold that the petitioners are entitled for refund, provided they have not passed on the liability to any other party. This has to be examined by the assessing authority before directing refund of the amounts. We therefore, remand the case back to the assessing authority to decide the question of refund after giving a notice to the petitioners and after giving a personal hearing. The T.Ps. are allowed and remanded to the assessing authority to decide the case in accordance with the directions contained in this judgment. 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 tribunals on the 2nd day of February, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 649 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... oned in the bill is, on an average Rs. 1.95 per kg. This aspect has been fully dealt with by the Board in its judgment. The matter requires reconsideration as directed by the Board. As regards charging of interest the Board has based its finding on the correct position of law. We find no ground to interfere with the same. As regards the penalty, the Board s direction for reconsideration should in our opinion remain. The quantum of penalty must be commensurate with the quantum of suppressed sale which can be calculated on the basis of the rate of conversion charge as mentioned above. 13.. Thus, we find nothing to interfere with the finding and the order of the Board. Whatever mistakes committed by the assessing authority or the appellate authority have been duly taken care of by the Board in its judgment. 14.. Hence, the petition is dismissed and the order of the Board is affirmed. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Petition dismissed.
........
|
