|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 623 Records
-
2004 (2) TMI 682 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. At no point of time, the plaintiff-appellant had claimed the suit property to be ancestral before the lower Appellate Court and in this view of the matter, the appellant cannot be allowed to urge in this Regular Second Appeal that the property in question was ancestral and as such Jit Singh was not competent to Will away the same in favour of one of his brothers excluding the claim in his other brothers. So far as the expert evidence is concerned, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge, was perfectly justified in ignoring the divergent reports of the two Handwriting Experts and placing reliance on the testimony of the two attesting witnesses and the scribe of the Will and no foul could be found with the same. In view of above, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the foodgrains meant to be utilised as seeds has irretrievably lost its basic character i.e. its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose and that such processed seeds have become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood?
-
2004 (2) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the claim preferred by the respondents can be said to be a claim for refund of an 'overcharge'?
-
2004 (2) TMI 678 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee paid the compounding fee and tried to get a refund in terms of rules 43 and 44 of the Entertainments Tax Rules. The assessee purported to deduct the amounts on his own from the compounding fee payable under section 3B of the Act. This was not an act which was authorised by anything contained in the Act or the Rules and this was in violation of the obligation of the licensee to pay the compounding fee in terms of the Act. Therefore, it could not be said that the authorities concerned were not justified in imposing a penalty on the licensee and also in calling upon him to pay the amount which he had deducted. Section 16 of the Act does confer a power on the authority concerned to impose a penalty. Thus, the order imposing penalty cannot also be said to be illegal or one without jurisdiction. In this situation, we are satisfied that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. We, therefore, reject the contentions of the petitioners and dismiss the writ petition.
-
2004 (2) TMI 677 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... y be prescribed Provided that an application may be entertained within sixty days from the commencement of clause (a) of section 7 where the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the order of action by which he is aggrieved was passed or taken, as the case may be, within sixty days prior to the commencement of the aforesaid clause (a) of the said section and that he has not moved the High Court against such order or action passed or taken under the specified State Act. Therefore, we find that all the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner is barred by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. Regarding imposition of penalty the matter should have been taken before the revisional forum for appropriate relief. We, therefore, find no merits in the aforesaid cases and those are liable to be dismissed. All the applications are, therefore, dismissed without costs. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2004 (2) TMI 676 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... borne in mind by the Commissioner in exhibit P11 had not been adverted to at all. All that apart though the petitioner had specifically pointed out to the first respondent that the second respondent had once closed the proceedings, there is no reference to that contention either. If the penalty proceedings had once been dropped, whether it is competent for the first respondent to initiate the very same proceedings de novo is also a question to be considered by the first respondent. Bereft of all these crucial aspects, it cannot be said that exhibit P16 is a reasonable order. I set aside exhibit P16. However, I make it clear that it will be open to the first respondent to issue fresh notice, if required, after considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and then pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 10868 of 1996 in O.P. No. 6298 of 1996(Y) dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 675 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt proceedings were pending but there is no provision under which the amount could be withheld by the revenue as no demand was recoverable against the assessee. Thus, in view of rule 35, beyond the period of sixty days, after filing of an application, the revenue would be liable to pay interest in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 25 of the Act (reproduced hereabove). In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the order dated December 24, 1986 (copy annexure P 8) is quashed. The respondents are directed to calculate the interest due and payable in accordance with the aforestated provisions within sixty days from the date of presentation of the calculations by the petitioner. It is clarified that such presentation shall be taken to be in continuation of an application which is statutorily required to be filed under the Rules, resultantly the question period for processing shall not be available except the aforestated period of sixty days. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (2) TMI 674 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eriod. A relief or prayer of this nature does not arise from any statutory provision nor is it any right of the petitioner, which is sought to be enforced before this court. When the relief sought for is neither a statutory right nor any other type of right and it is not even in the nature of a coercive measure as contemplated under section 22(1) of the Act, there is no occasion for this court to issue the mandamus as prayed for. In this view of the matter, there is no occasion for this court to issue the writ as prayed for, particularly when the petitioner through a voluntary act has collected certain amount that was due to the State, but has refrained from passing it on to the State. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file a memo of appearance within four weeks.
-
2004 (2) TMI 673 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s used outside lavatories, urinals and bathrooms, it will not cease to be a sanitary ware. For example a wash basin is a sanitary fitting. Many wash basins are fixed in dining rooms or in wall niches near kitchens or dining areas. Can it therefore be said that wash basins cease to be sanitary ware? Similarly taps/cocks which are mostly used in bathrooms as also in toilets will not cease to be sanitary fittings because they are also used in kitchens. As held by the Supreme Court, what is relevant is the meaning of the term sanitary fittings in the popular sense, in common parlance and in trade circles. In common parlance and in trade circles CP fittings (bibcocks, pillarcocks, CP stopcocks, showers and taps) are considered as items used in bathrooms and that they are sanitary fittings. We are therefore of the view that decision of the assessing authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal does not call for interference. Petitions are therefore dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 672 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ay the same will amount to discrimination. Here all the manufacturers are liable to pay duty. Only the dealers who are not manufacturers were exempted till the date of apex court 39 s decision because until the apex court 39 s decision Government as well as dealers were under the belief that mere dealers who are not manufacturers need not include incidence of cess in the purchase turnover. Dealers include a manufacturer also. But, cess was demanded from manufacturers only. Therefore, only those dealers who are not manufacturers are exempted till the date of apex court 39 s decision. It is a relaxation given by the Government. Burden is on the person who claims exemption. Since appellant is not a mere dealer, but also a manufacturer, the benefit is not applicable to it. Merely because manufacturing is done outside the State, appellant cannot be given the above exemption violating the mandate of article 14. We fully agree with the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 671 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Constitution of India, the provisions of sections 84, 85 and 86 would be rendered nugatory. In view of the law just discussed above, the following authorities on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be helpful to him as the writ petition is not being decided on merits (i) UCO Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1999 237 ITR 889 (SC) 1999 4 SCC 599. (ii) British Machinery Supplier v. Union of India 1996 9 SCC 663, and (iii) Continental Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1992 195 ITR 81 (SC) 1992 Supp 2 SCC 567. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is treated as not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy available to him by way of filing first appeal under section 84 of the RST Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. Cost made easy.
-
2004 (2) TMI 670 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... al building altered here was the outbuilding and not the house. True it is that the requirement for these works to be authorised rested upon the fact that, under the extended definition of listed building in section 1(5) of the 1990 Act, a listed building was being altered. That, however, appears to me an insufficient basis for ignoring the simple physical reality, namely that here it was the outbuilding itself which was being altered. It is to the actual work of alteration that item 2 is directed. Either the building which is itself being altered is a protected building as defined or it is not. Here it was not. 62 I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. I agree with it. 63 I too would allow this appeal. Appeal allowed Order of the judge restored with costs in the Court of Appeal. Commissioners to pay taxpayers 39 costs in the House. Solicitors Solicitors for Customs and Excise Wallace and Partners.
-
2004 (2) TMI 669 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in the trade. The Explosives Act and the Gas Cylinders Rules are intended to ensure safety of users and general public. In regard to inflammable gases, safety measures are necessary not only when such gases are manufactured, but also when transferring such gases from one container to another or filling such gases into containers (cylinders). To ensure that the protective measures prescribed or associated with manufacture are adopted even when transferring gas from container to container, the activity of filling or transferring gas is also brought under manufacture of gas . The extended special definition of manufacture of gas in the Gas Cylinders Rules, cannot obviously be applied to find out the general meaning of the words manufacture or processing used in sales tax law. Therefore, the definition in Gas Cylinder Rules cannot be applied. 9.. The order of the authority is correct. There is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 668 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xamination by the Deputy Commissioner, we feel that it will be appropriate to quash the order, annexure 6 and the notice (annexure 7) and direct the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2, to consider the matter afresh after giving the petitioner and the department an effective opportunity of being heard and ensuring that the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and the department are specifically answered. Thus, we allow this writ petition and quash the order, annexure 6, and the notice, annexure 7, and remit the proceedings to the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner, for a reconsideration of the question involved and to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties and in accordance with law. We direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. So as to enable an expeditious disposal, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on April 5, 2004, on which date a date for hearing will be fixed by the said respondent. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 667 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tent that the impugned order, annexure 10, dated October 8, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer qua the petitioner-firm is set aside and the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward No. 2, Circle Chittorgarh, is directed to consider and decide the point whether the petitioner-firm was entitled to benefit of exemption with effect from March 10, 2003 (the date of its registration as KVIC unit) or not, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, by a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-firm and during the course of hearing, the petitioner-firm may raise all the submissions which were being raised through this writ petition. The petitioner-firm is directed to appear before the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, along with the certified copy of this order on or before March 9, 2004. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 666 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... after collecting the necessary fees from the assessee. It is the petitioners assessment it is the assessment of his turnover on which he would be liable to pay tax. Hence, he must be in a position to give his reply to the notice as he felt that without the copies, it may not be possible to give the reply. Hence, the order of assessment made in the petitioners case for the year 2001-2002 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 passed against the petitioner was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent, viz., the Commercial Tax Officer, Tallakulam Assessment Circle, Madurai. The second respondent herein is directed to complete the assessment as early as possible after complying with the principles of natural justice. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 3590 of 2004 is closed. Petition allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 665 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e 25, 2001, had again imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000 and, thus, it was contended that no refund of interest was due to the petitioner in that writ petition. This contention was negatived by this Court on the ground that the dealer had become entitled to refund on November 26, 1997 when the penalty had been cancelled and matter remanded. It was further held that the subsequent order dated June 25, 2001 could not impose penalty from a retrospective date. 7.. Respectfully following the decision in the case Saurabh Kumar and Bros. 2001 127 STC 556 (P and H) (2001) 18 PHT 336 (P and H), we hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest on refund on the amount of Rs. 85,175 from March 26, 2003 to December 18, 2003. The respondents are directed to calculate the same and issue the refund voucher within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8.. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.
-
2004 (2) TMI 664 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r Act, i.e., the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1973, has no bearing for adjudication of the point at issue in the present writ petition. We may also mention that the State Government has not initiated any action against the petitioner for the alleged violation, on a query from the Bench it has also been conceded that no action has been initiated against the members of the Screening Committee which had granted the eligibility certificate without the CLU. 4.. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the dispute in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in R.K. Mittal Woollen Mills case 2001 123 STC 248 (2000) 15 PHT 261 and Baldev Spinners case 2003 132 STC 594 (2003) 21 PHT 459. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated April 21, 2003 (annexure P11) is quashed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2004 (2) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was a contravention of Section 50 of the Act inasmuch as the offer made to the accused for searching his person in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and his declining the offer of the same, was not corroborated by any independent witnesses?
Held that:- In the present case Section 50 does not apply at all to a situation where the search undertaken is not of the person of the accused but of something carried in his hand.. The mere fact that the officer concerned offered to have the search of the respondent-accused taken before a Gazetted Officer/Magistrate, or that there were no independent witnesses to evidence this offer, hardly makes any difference to the situation. In our view, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that the action of the police officers was contrary to Section 51 of the Act and giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused when there was no scope for raising such a doubt at all.
-
2004 (2) TMI 662 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ness in action which will result in quashing the assessment orders as without jurisdiction. The attitude of the assessing authorities will only lead to delay in the collection of tax legitimately due to the Government. Consequently the very purpose for which instructions are issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or the Government will frustrate. 9.. In the circumstances, it is high time that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum, issues instructions under section 3(1A)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 to all the assessing authorities regarding the need for completing assessments strictly complying with the procedural safeguards in the manner stated earlier diligently to take care of the interest of both the assessee and the Revenue. 10.. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvanathapuram for appropriate action. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
