|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 568 Records
-
2001 (2) TMI 999 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en section 5-E was not in the APGST Act. 11.. In fact, this Court in the case of I.T.C. Classic Finance and Services 1995 97 STC 330 (1995) 20 APSTJ 150, and also in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (P) Ltd. 2000 117 STC 269 (1999) 29 APSTJ 126, held that in the case of sale effected outside the State and in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the sale would not attract section 5-E and hence are not exigible to tax under that provision. 12.. In view of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the tax revision cases filed by the department and hence the same are dismissed. In the special appeals, the view of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is clearly illegal and unsustainable and accordingly the orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are set aside and the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner are restored. The special appeals are accordingly allowed. Petitions dismissed and Appeals allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 998 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... however a judicial one and not an arbitrary exercise of the power. What should be the quantum of penalty, cannot be exhaustively enumerated. It depends upon the facts peculiar to each individual case. Since the Sales Tax Officer has not given any reason as to why the petitioner should be inflicted with the maximum penalty (in absence of any reason ascribed even by the Commissioner when he reduced the penalty), we are inclined to remit the matter to him to consider the question relating to the imposition of the extent of penalty on the petitioner. We order accordingly. 7.. For this purpose, the petitioner will appear before the Sales Tax Officer on 1st of March, 2001 and file his reply. If any such reply is filed, the Sales Tax Officer will consider and dispose of the same according to law. We make it clear that this inquiry by the sales tax authorities is confined only to the quantum of penalty. The writ petition is allowed. CH. P.K. MISRA, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 997 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... T Act was considered by this Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Hybrid Seeds Co. 1997 106 STC 34 and in Vinod Solvent Extracts (P) Ltd. 1989 73 STC 175, and held that when once a notification under section 9(1) of the APGST Act, is issued granting a general exemption, then there is no need to issue separate notification under the CST Act. By virtue of the provisions of section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, the transactions under the CST Act will get the benefit of exemption. 14.. Under the above circumstances, the view of the revisional authority that separate notification under the CST Act is required in order to avail the benefit of exemption, in addition to the notification issued under section 9(1) of the APGST Act, is clearly erroneous and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15.. The impugned order of the revisional authority is accordingly set aside and the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) dated March 27, 1992 is restored. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 996 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erpret that the said benefit is intended to be extended even to the dealers, who got the finished products manufactured from a hired rerollers. The products used in the G.O. are very clear that the benefit is intended only to the manufacturers, who are the rerollers and mini steel plant-cumrerollers. Assuming that there is some ambiguity in the G.O. as to the assessees, who are entitled to the benefit of the G.O. as held by the apex Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Hyderabad 1994 (73) ELT 769, if there is any doubt or ambiguity, the benefit of it must go to the State and not to the subject. Even on that ground also the assessee-dealer is not entitled to the benefit of the G.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error warranting interference with its order. 13.. Under the above circumstances, the tax revision case is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, that the drawer of the cheque will be liable for the offence under the said provision. Since in the instant case, the cheque has not been dishonoured for any of the abovesaid grounds and it has been dishonoured only on the ground that the cheque does not bear the signature of the present petitioner, who is the managing director of the company and that it does not bear the seal of the company, no case is made out for the offence under section 138 of the Act. Thus, the above facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose any grounds to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Act. I, therefore, find that the learned Magistrate was not justified in registering the case against the petitioner and in ordering for issue of process to him. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 146 of 1999 are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 994 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the hotel and those items are also taken into consideration for fixing the turnover. In the light of the view that we have taken, we direct the assessing officer to consider afresh the turnover of cooked food and beverages as per entry 57 and pass orders accordingly. 7.. The next question is as to who sold the cooked food to the Indian Airlines. According to the assessee, the cooked food was not sold by the assessee to the Indian Airlines, but by M/s. Paramount Tower. The assessee has produced annexure D. Since we are directing the matter to be considered afresh by the assessing authority, we direct the assessing authority to consider this aspect also. In the above view of the matter, the tax revision cases are allowed. The assessing authority will reconsider the question on the basis of the directions given above. Order on C.M.P. No. 4547 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 322 of 2000 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4569 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 328 of 2000 dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 993 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sing of the building, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent in O.P. No. 13426 of 2000 to re-deliver or permit possession of the building by the first petitioner for the time being. 15.. The revision, if any, from exhibit P13 order in O.P. No. 13426 of 2000 will be filed within a period of three weeks from today. The respondents will maintain status quo regarding the revenue recovery proceedings (except in the matter of putting back the first petitioner in possession of the building) for a period of one month from this date. In other words, notwithstanding the order for maintenance of status quo, the first petitioner will be given back possession of the building forthwith. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 21890 of 2000, 42166 of 2000 and 8368 of 2001 and 21889 of 2000 in O.P. No. 13426 of 2000 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 38949 of 1997 in O.P. No. 21684 of 1997 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 45647 and 45646 of 1998 in O.P. No. 26101 of 1998 dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (2) TMI 992 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the contract itself provides that movement of goods to take place from one State to other in execution of works contract. Once it is found that the contract provides for such a covenant, for movement of goods, then it clearly constitutes an inter-State sale thereby attracting the liability to pay Central sales tax on sale/purchase of those items which were purchased by the petitioner in execution of works contract. In a case of this nature, when the taxability is decided not on the basis of 46th amendment but it was decided strictly on the basis of the covenants contained in the contract. Such finding is not assailable nor it was sought to be assailed by the petitioner. It was a finding based on facts. It is binding on this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 14.. In my opinion, therefore, no flaw can be found in the impugned orders passed by the assessing authority and that of revisionary authority. 15.. Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 991 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by time. The action of issuance of notices for reassessment for subsequent assessment years is upheld and the proceedings for reassessment may continue in furtherance thereof subject to observations made above as to the exigibility to the tax, the transactions which are properly to be construed as sales or purchases in the course of inter-State trade and commerce under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act without consideration of the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act more particularly the impugned Explanations I and II under section 2(o) of that Act, which are beyond legislative competent of the State and also without dwelling on the question of penalty to start with. However, it will be open to the assessing officer, in the course of assessment if any material comes to light that there has been non-disclosure of material facts or details on the part of the assessee, to initiate proceedings for penalty also. No orders as to costs. Petitions allowed in part.
-
2001 (2) TMI 990 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... such extended meaning. Such enactment still have to be subject to provisions of entry 92A of the Union List and article 286 of the Constitution. 31.. In view of aforesaid, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 in so far as they have widened the scope of levy of tax notwithstanding that the agreement for works contract has been wholly or in part entered into outside the State or that the goods have been wholly or in part moved outside the State are ultra vires the Constitution. 32.. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed as aforesaid. The impugned assessment orders for the assessment year 1997-98 and provisional assessment order for the year 1998-99 are quashed and set aside and the assessing officer is directed to decide the question of levy of tax de novo without taking into consideration the provisions of explanation II of section 2(38) of the Act of 1994. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 989 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... judgments passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The judicial pronouncement made in this context by the apex Court has not properly considered by the learned Members of the Board. We, therefore, are of opinion that the transaction in question was interState sale since the sale occasioned movement of the goods from one State to another. The findings of the learned Members of the Board as well as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes were based on misconception of law and are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 12.. The instant application is thus, allowed. The impugned orders are thereby set aside. The respondents are directed not to take any steps for recovery of the assessed demand. The certificate proceeding under Certificate Case No. 21 ST(CD) of 1999-2000 is, accordingly set aside. No order as to costs. A. DEB (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 988 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 20, 1990 and April 12, 1990 (annexure P/19) for grant of eligibility certificate in payment of sales tax and entry tax on its own merit treating the application to have been made by the petitioner as a distinct industrial unit for the first time and then should have considered whether the petitioner satisfied all the terms and conditions necessary for the grant of eligibility certificate. 12.. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed, impugned order dated July 1, 1992, annexure P/20, and order dated July 9, 1992 are set aside by issuance of writ of certiorari. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner on April 20, 1990 and April 12, 1990, annexure P/19, afresh on its merits in the light of observations made supra. Let these proceedings be completed within six months from the date of order. No cost. Security amount if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner as per the rules. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 987 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not be given goats nor will he be satisfied with goats. Equally so when he intends to purchase goats he will not be satisfied if mutton is supplied to him. This is because the two, both in commercial circles and in common parlance, are two different things having a distinct individuality of their own, one different from the other. It would therefore be wrong to assume, as the High Court has done, that these two goods are the same . Admittedly, the meat is not sold in the hotel. What is sold is cooked food. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, levy of purchase tax in respect of the turnover of chicken cannot be exempted on the ground that the meat is exempted. 7.. In view of the above fact, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is modified to the extent of deleting the addition made for foreign liquor and sustaining the order in other respects. T.R.C. is disposed of. Order on C.M.P. No. 135 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 12 of 2001 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (2) TMI 986 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... isions of sub-rule (10) of rule 212 gives such authority to the respondents and the respondents were within their right to intercept the vehicle. In that view of the matter, we find that the provisions of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 have been violated and, therefore, the respondents have every right to enforce the provisions of section 69 of the said Act. 7.. When this application was admitted, we find that the goods were released on furnishing security. Upon a consideration of all aspects of the case we do not find anything wrong in the order for interception and thus there is nothing to interfere with the order of the respondent which was under challenge before this Tribunal. Since there is no merit in this application, we are of the view that this application should be rejected. Accordingly, this application under section 8 of the Act is rejected. We do not make any order for costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 985 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orks contract within the taxable turnover by invoking Explanation II/IV to section 2(38) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is concerned is held to be ultra vires. The assessing officer is free to decide the question of the value of goods involved in execution of works contract and property in which has been transferred in the execution of works contracts for the purpose of levy under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Such value has to be determined only to the extent such transaction falls within the legislative competence of State, by applying the principle governing the determination of nature of transaction falling in the category of sales (i) outside State or (ii) in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or (iii) in the course of export or import outside India only in accordance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and without reference to Explanations II and IV to section 2(38) of the Act of 1994. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 984 - SUPREME COURT
What is meant by, "the bank" as mentioned in Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
Does such bank mean the bank of the drawer of the cheque or covers within its ambit any bank including the collecting bank of the Payee of the cheque?
To which bank the cheque is to be presented for the purposes of attracting the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. We have perused the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana, Gujarat and Madras High Courts and their conflicting views and are of the opinion that the Madras High Court has not correctly interpreted the provisions of law in this behalf. As, admittedly, in this case the cheque was not presented before the drawer’s bank within the statutory period of six months, the criminal court had no jurisdiction to issue the process against the appellant. The impugned judgment of the High Court being contrary to law is thus not sustainable.
-
2001 (2) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT
Whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election and the nature of corrupt practice?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The allegations which have been made in the election petition are allegations of corrupt practice against Cardozo besides some others. Since Cardozo was a nominated candidate, it was necessary to implead him as a party-respondent under Section 82(b) of the Act, irrespective of the fact that before the actual date of election, he had withdrawn his candidature and allegedly committed the corrupt practice after his withdrawal from the election. Thus, the answer to the question posed in the earlier part of the judgment is in the affirmative.
-
2001 (2) TMI 982 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... lant submitted that the possession still remains with the appellant. These rival contentions need not be gone into, since we have come to the conclusion that the appeal is barred by limitation. In view of the conclusion we have reached that the order was duly served on the appellant by affixture, we do not find any relevance in the decisions cited by learned counsel in Kinetics Honda Motors Ltd. v. Union of India 1992 61 ELT 52 (MP) Vidya Ply and Board Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1992 61 ELT 231 (All). Similarly, Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 167 ITR 471 (SC), in which it was laid down that a liberal view should be taken in the cases of delay in filing of appeals by the State, is also not applicable, as the delay in that case was only four days, whereas, the delay in the present case is over two decades and hence, no liberal view can be taken. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No. 12/DLI of 2001 also stands dismissed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 981 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer should recover the short deduction of tax which has arisen on account of the amendment in section 2(24) of the Act with retrospective effect from the concerned employees after ascertaining the details from the assesseebank. However, in respect of the interest levied by the Assessing Officer under section 201(1A) of the Act, we hold that the question of levying of interest on account of short deduction of tax as alleged by the Assessing Officer is out of question as there was no short deduction of tax at the relevant time of making the payments by the assessee-bank to its employees as the same was made as per law as it stood at the relevant period. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is in conformity with law and the grounds of appeal are also liable to be dismissed against the Department. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
-
2001 (2) TMI 980 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions contained under Section 152 C.P.C. may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding?
Whether on the facts of the present case and the principles it could be said that there was any clerical or arithmetical error or accidental slip on the part of the Court or not?
Held that:- Allow the appeal. Looking to the prayers made by the respondent-husband for granting mandatory injunction the application for rectification of decree was totally misconceived and was only liable to be dismissed rather to incorporate terms and conditions of the agreement dated 26.7.1991 in respect of which no prayer was made in the application for modification nor in the original petition for dissolution of marriage more particularly when no accidental slip on the part of the Court was indicated in the application nor the same being substantiated. In view of the discussion allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and family court dated 11.11.1992 allowing the application for rectification/modification of the decree dated 7.3.1992.
........
|
