|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 259 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... best judgment assessment in an appropriate case, while making such assessment he cannot make wholly an arbitrary estimation. The best judgment assessment should be based on something or some material which has nexus with the amount arrived at as gross turnover. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate as to what was the material on which the assessing officer based his assessment of Rs. 16 lakhs as gross turnover. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The assessment order dated March 19, 1983 for the period of four quarters ending Chaitra 1385 B.S. and the impugned appellate and revisional orders dated September 19, 1987 and August 2, 1994, respectively are set aside. The respondent No. 1, Commercial Tax Officer, is directed to make a fresh assessment for the said period according to law after giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and keeping in view the observations made in this order. There will be no order for costs. Application allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner s unit could not be said to be adjacent to Nimit Industry which manufactures the same goods nor the wife who is running the petitioner s unit has any interest in the existing unit, namely, Nimit Industry. According to the reasons and the findings recorded by us the impugned order rejecting the review application of the petitioner by means of the order dated 29th September, 1991 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) is quashed. We direct respondent No. 2, Joint Director of Industries, Agra, to issue eligibility certificate within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of this order is filed before him. Until issuance of such certificate the order dated 29th September, 1991 and 3rd February, 1993 shall continue to be operative. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed with costs. A certified copy of this order will be given to the learned counsel for the parties within a week on payment of usual charges. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 257 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion that that amount has to be included in the turnover of M/s. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited and as there was no proof that the turnover relating to expenses has been so included in the turnover of M/s. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited that amount was taxable in the hands of the assessee. Whether that amount could have been included in the turnover of M/s. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited is a question which cannot be determined in this appeal in the absence of M/s. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Limited. We have only to see whether that can properly be treated as a turnover of the appellant. It is nobody s case that that amount was received by the appellant as part of sales or purchase price of the goods. Therefore, this amount does not fall within the meaning of turnover. As such, it cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The order of the Commissioner is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed with costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 256 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Karnataka High Court reported in 1994 94 STC 243 (Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association (Regd.) v. State of Karnataka) and arrive at the same conclusion as are arrived at in the aforesaid decision. Therefore, we agree with the view taken in the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in 1994 94 STC 243 (Karnataka Pawn Brokers Association (Regd.) v. State of Karnataka). 32.. In the light of our conclusions on the nature of the transactions and the role of the pawnbrokers in the sale of the pledged articles, we hold that there is no merit whatsoever in the plea based upon the alleged inequal treatment and violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India on that account. 33.. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions and consequently, these writ petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 255 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his behalf. So far levy of interest is concerned since almost all the pleas of the applicant have been accepted, the question of charging any interest does not arise. No other point was argued or pressed on behalf of the applicant. In view of the above, it is held that the applicant is entitled to get the amount of incentive paid by it to its dealers, deducted from the total taxable turnover. It is further entitled to get the insurance amount deducted from the total turnover. Similarly, material service performance security deposit and labour service performance security deposit cannot form part of the taxable turnover. The applicant is also entitled to proportionate reduction in tax in respect of the defective C forms which were wrongly rejected. The applicant cannot be fastened with the liability of interest. With these findings revisions are disposed of. The Sales Tax Tribunal shall pass consequential order under section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 254 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unauthorised and without jurisdiction. There is another angle to the controversy also. Where the admitted tax is not paid, resort can be taken to section 13(4)(a) without any notice to the dealer to have its say. But where the dealer does not accept its liability to pay the tax (including surcharge) the situation would be different. The authorities are not helpless to deal with dealers who without sufficient cause furnish incorrect return or information affecting or intending to affect the quantum of tax payable. In an appropriate case action under section 12(4-a) can be taken. 4.. Accordingly we set aside the order under annexure 2 and consequently the demand raised under annexure 3. It is, however, open to the Sales Tax Officer to take action in respect of the surcharge payable in view of the decision in Sitania Enterprisers case 1994 92 STC 524 (Orissa). The writ application is accordingly disposed of. No cost. R.K. DASH, J.-I agree. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 253 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y tax. In our opinion, the second point is thus concluded against the petitioner in the case of Jayant Extraction Industries 1992 85 STC 3 (Guj). Hence, to that extent the order cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the rule is made absolute accordingly. The petitioner cannot be held manufacturer and is not liable to pay purchase tax under section 15B of the Act. But in connection with purchases made against form No. 19, since no necessary material and evidence was produced by the petitioner, it was open to the authorities to decide the case on pro rata basis and no fault can be found against such course being adopted by the department. The impugned order, dated January 31, 1995, is quashed and set aside. It is, however, open to the authorities to effect recovery from the petitioner in the light of observations made hereinabove. In the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 252 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondent has no jurisdiction to issue notice dated August 5, 1993 directing the 4th respondent to deduct taxes at source and the respondent No. 5 has also no authority and jurisdiction to deduct the tax at source in the manner as it is proposed. Therefore, the letter dated August 5, 1993 issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside as ultra vires. In view of the above discussions, I allow the writ petitions setting aside the notice dated August 5, 1993, issued by the 3rd respondent directing the 4th and 5th respondents to deduct tax at source from the payment to be made to the petitioners bill and direct the 4th and 5th respondents not to deduct tax at source on the basis of the impugned notice. However, I make it clear that the authority after prescribing the manner and the rate shall be at liberty to deduct tax at source. In the result, the petitions are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h it transferred to its members. The fact that the assessee gave C forms would also not stand in the way of its being a mere intermediary or go-between, so as not to be a dealer. The assessee was therefore not liable to sales tax . But the facts of the present case are different. The assessee accepted the payment of printing charges and also accepted the collection of charges for the calendars from the constituents. But, there is no evidence on record to show that such charges collected by the assessee were handed over to the Calcutta party, on whose behalf the calendars were said to have been printed. Under such circumstances, we are unable to support the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty levied. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) who is the appellate authority is restored. The Tax Case Revision No. 1315 of 1984 is therefore allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 250 - SUPREME COURT
Whether where cause of action had arisen partly within territorial jurisdiction of one court or partly in another court, it would be open to the parties to avail of the remedy at the court where part of the cause of action had arisen? - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The parties having agreed to vest the jurisdiction of the Court situated within the territorial limit of High Court of Karnataka, the Court of subordinate Judge, Dhanbad in Bihar State has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit laid by the appellant.
-
1995 (4) TMI 249 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 insofar as the amendment at hand is concerned, could it be reasonably said that the same operates retrospectively?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. No difficulty in holding that insofar as the present case is concerned, the amendment has to be held as applicable to the suit which was pending. Indeed, we would go further and say that even if vested right would have accrued to the landlord by the time the amendment of 1952 came to force, a view could well be taken that the amendment should apply retrospectively.
-
1995 (4) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Sawn timber ... ... ... ... ..... or of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar who happened to be the same officer who has passed the impugned order-in-appeal dated 30-10-85 which is before us now for disposal. By the said order-in-original dated 30-12-88, Collector, Bhubaneswar also had taken note of the Kutty Flush Doors judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and held that wood products, sawn sizes and sleepers made by M/s. Orissa Forest Corporation, Ltd. who are the respondents herein were not excisable goods since the conversion of timber into sawn timber did not amount to manufacture of a new and different article with distinct name, character or use and hence no duty was payable thereon under Tariff Item 68. 5. emsp Following the Honourable Supreme Court judgment in the Kutty Flush Doors case which has been followed in a number of Tribunal decisions, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order-in-appeal covering seven appeals relating to demand of duty and four appeals relating to imposition of penalty.
-
1995 (4) TMI 247 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... court was not available to them till February 20, 1995, and, therefore, they did not inform the trial court of the same on February 16, 1995. Whatever may be the relevant facts in that regard, it is not relevant in the present revision petition. In so far as these revision petitions are concerned, the orders of the trial court passed in the interlocutory applications are wholly unsustainable and without jurisdiction and they have to be set aside. If it is open in law to the respondents to challenge the validity of the general body meeting held on February 20, 1995, of the company, they can resort to such remedies as are available to them in law. They can urge all the facts which are relevant and necessary in their case for getting the relief prayed for by them in such a proceeding. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the District Munsif, Udumalaipet, on January 31, 1995, are set aside. I.A. Nos. 266 and 267 of 1995 are dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 240 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Free transferability and registration of transfers of listed securities of companies ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time during the course of arguments, more particularly, when these were not placed before the CLB or any foundation laid in the petition to take these events into consideration. 16. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim stay is vacated. No order as to costs. 17. After we pronounced the judgment, Mr. S.N. Shaikh appearing for the petitioners made an oral prayer for staying operation of the judgment for 12 weeks. 18. Oral prayer of the counsel for certificate that the case is fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court is also declined as we do not find that any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court arises. The question answered in the writ petition has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17915 of 1994. 19. Issuance of the certified copy is expedited. 20. Order accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 239 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Amalgamation of companies, ... ... ... ... ..... to be wound up and not otherwise, the second proviso would require a reports of the official Liquidator before passing an order of dissolution. While the first proviso talks of amalgamation, the second proviso talks of dissolution. The difference in the language is significant. Hence, in our view, the order passed by the learned judge sanctioning the amalgamation and also directing the official Liquidator to file his reports is quite in accord with the statutory provision contained in section 394. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, the consistent practice in this court has been to pass orders on amalgamation without waiting for reports from the official Liquidator. The practice is not in violation of the statute. Hence, we reject this contention of the appellant. 34. In the result, all the arguments of the appellant fail and the appeal suffers a dismissal. The appellants shall pay the costs of the respondent in this appeal. Counsel s fee Rs. 5,000.
-
1995 (4) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Extraordinary general meeting - Validity of ... ... ... ... ..... s. In our opinion, at this interlocutory stage, we should not interfere with the order of the learned Judge, who has exercised his discretion against the grant of injunction. The circumstances, which we have pointed out earlier, are sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs cannot stop the implemen-tation of the resolutions passed by the general body unanimously. It is also to be noted that the plaintiffs not having challenged resolution No. 1 and having obtained the benefit thereof, cannot prevent the implementation of resolution No. 2. There is also no substance in contending that the Board has no power to make allotment of shares as it is seen that the resolution is a special one contemplated under section 81 (1A) and it has authorised the Board of Directors to make the allotment. 8. In those circumstances, we do not find any justification whatever to interfere with the order of the learned Judge in these appeals. Hence, they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annual general meeting ... ... ... ... ..... the retiring directors at the meeting held on 28-9-1994 was also proper and valid, the constitution of the Board of Directors could be rectified in the light of that decision. No irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiffs in that case since the Bank s functioning is properly and statutorily regulated. It must also be noticed that the present suit is not one in a representative capacity, as emphasised by learned Advocate General. In view of what is stated above, I am not satisfied that the order of the court below requires to be interfered with. I therefore confirm the order of the court below and dismiss this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There shall be no order as to costs, save that each party bear his own, in this appeal and in the court below. But in the circumstances of the case, I think it appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite the trial and disposal of the suit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit without fail, on or before 22-12-1995.
-
1995 (4) TMI 222 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Share Capital ... ... ... ... ..... fully paid-up on each of the said shares. The remaining shares are unissued. The special resolution of the company has been passed to take effect upon the said reduction of capital by repaying a sum of Rs. 48.18 crores representing 4,81,80,000 equity snares of Rs. 10 each to the shareholders proportionately (a)by repaying equity capital to the extent of Rs. 21.25 crores at par in cash (b)by issuing 17.5 per cent non-convertible debentures of the amount of Rs. 26.93 crores, it having the face value of Rs. 100 credited as paid-up and such debentures are redeemable in cash in four equal instalments of Rs. 25 per debenture com- mencing from 1-4-1996 and such debentures carry a redemp- tion premium of 10 per cent per annum repayable in four equal instalments commencing from 1-4-1996 by rounding up the equity share to the nearest marketable lot of 50 shares. WITNESS the Hon ble Thiru Kudarikoti Andadenayya Swami, Chief Justice at Madras, aforesaid, this the 24th day of April, 1995.
-
1995 (4) TMI 221 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Restraining fraudulent persons from managing companies, Interpretation of Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... them from acting as such for such period, which it considers just and proper. But, in the present case, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has proceeded as if he had no opinion in the matter. 9. Shri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the first respondent strenuously contends that the Court has no option but to disqualify the petitioner. He also contends that the period of disqualification (five years) is just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. I am unable to agree. The offences for which the petitioner was found guilty are of technical nature. I am of the firm view that conviction for such offences does not warrant an order restraining the petitioner from taking part in the promotion, formation or management of the company, for any period, much less for a period of five years. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are set aside and the revisions are allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 220 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Transfer of shares ... ... ... ... ..... at the hearing of the trial after the appellant leads evidence. At the interim stage, we are not prepared to accept the claim of the appellant about such oral agreement. In our judgment, in these circum-stances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 5. It is required to be stated at this juncture that the amount advanced by the appellant for securing pledge of shares was Rs. 1,50,000 and that amount was advanced on 2-6-1986. The learned Single Judge granted relief to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on condition that the respondents deposit Rs. 2,50,000 with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. The amount has accordingly been deposited and that sufficiently protects the interest of the appellant. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and is not required to be disturbed. Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
