|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 473 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 542 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rtunity is given to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent and to substantiate his contentions by producing all documents including accounts and furnishing the relevant details. The petitioner or his authorised representative will appear before the first respondent on August 6, 1996 at 11 a.m. and produce all relevant documents. The first respondent shall hear the petitioner on that day. After hearing the petitioner, the first respondent will pass orders either modifying the assessment order or keeping it intact. Any order passed will be communicated to the petitioner. All attempts should be made to serve the order under rule 63(a) or (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. If the above modes are not feasible, the order may be sent by registered post. Till fresh orders are passed, the enforcement of exhibits P3 and P4 notices will stand stayed. Original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 18377 of 1996 in O.P. No. 10677 of 1996-U dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 541 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sence of any material before us, and in the absence of such plea being raised before the assessing authorities, it would not be prudent to investigate this aspect of the matter in writ proceeding. The petitioners may seek their remedy under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act before the appropriate authorities. 30.. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petitions, and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from moving the appropriate authorities under the Bihar Finance Act for determination of rate or purchase tax payable in view of the notification dated February 3, 1986 (annexure 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 2530 of 1993) as also from challenging the order imposing penalty before the appropriate authorities under the Act in accordance with law. However, nothing said in this judgment should be construed as expression of any opinion on these issues. There will be no order as to costs. N.K. SINHA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 540 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings before the authorities under the Act, it cannot be held that the chartered accountant is an agent for purposes of receiving pre-assessment notice. Receiving of notice during the pendency of any proceedings where chartered accountant is appearing cannot be equated with receiving of preassessment notice for and on behalf of a dealer. There is nothing on record to show that the auditor appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer pursuant to the notice in the assessment proceedings. In the absence of such material, in our view, service of show cause notice on the auditor who happened to appear subsequently in penalty proceedings cannot be taken as sufficient notice. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of assessment is set aside. The assessing authority is at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice and proceed with the assessment, in accordance with law. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 539 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n accepted that transfer having been effected for the purpose of sale, that would attract taxability. On the other hand, it is fairly accepted that the transferee-units do not deal with commercial transaction in cement and were utilising for construction works. The stock of cement received is issued to various contractors free of cost for construction of buildings. The tax has been rightly levied. 6.. Our answer to the first two questions referred is in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the dealer. So far as the third question is concerned, the amount will be the value of the materials utilised on the strength of form IV. This position is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the Revenue. This submission has no force. Though there was manufacture, the articles manufactured were not sold. On the other hand, manufactured articles were otherwise dealt with. Therefore, clearly there was contravention. A. Deb, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1996 (7) TMI 538 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x, Ghaziabad 1997 107 STC 98 (All) 1994 UPTC 1041 it was held that a case where assessing authority in Original assessment accepting transfer of goods to Ghaziabad as stock transfer after detailed scrutiny of all documents. Thereafter notice under section 21 for reassessment was issued. There no fresh materials were found by the Assessing Authority. It was held on these facts that such a notice for reassessment on the same material already scrutinised would amounts to change of opinion, which is liable to be quashed. 8.. For the aforesaid reasons on the basis of the aforesaid irresistible conclusion the present case is a case of change of opinion, hence the impugned notice dated August 17, 1994 and August 18, 1994 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition) are illegal and without jurisdiction, hence they are quashed. 9.. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. This is without prejudice to the rights of the respondents, if any, under the law. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 537 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he year. Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that the dealer was concealing his turnover as under-valuation price of opening stock resulting in under-valuation of the sale price and also effecting levy of tax. Assessing Authority increased gross turnover from Rs. 77,360 to Rs. 1,00,000, levied tax and imposed penalty of Rs. 4,000 under section 48 of the Act. This order was upheld by the first appellate authority and thereafter by the Tribunal. 3.. Petitioner filed an application under section 42(1) of the Act, for referring the questions of law, referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, for the opinion of this Court which has been declined. 4.. Tribunal has recorded a firm finding of fact that the assessee had failed to maintain correct accounts and to furnish correct return making him liable to the imposition of penalty under section 48 of the Act. No referable question of law arise from the facts present on the record. Dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 536 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emises on September 28, 1987 by the Intelligence Squad, Pathanamthitta. After preparation of the shop inspection report, certain records relating to the business has been recovered. The verification of the seized records revealed unaccounted sales on different date. When the assessing authority proposed prosecution proceedings, the assessee has filed a petition to compound the offence departmentally. Accordingly, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compounding fee in lieu of prosecution. That would sufficiently indicate that the stock variations reported by the assessing authority were correct and there was no manner of doubt about the existence of the irregularities pointed out by the assessing authority. 6.. On an anxious consideration of the entire matter, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order under challenge. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly confirmed and the tax revision case is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 535 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ject to satisfaction of the appropriate authority. The impugned aforesaid orders of respondents 4 and 3 respectively, are, therefore, modified to that extent. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no reason to interfere with the main finding contained in the impugned order dated January 12, 1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 4, and the order dated September 22, 1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 3, respectively. 9.. In the result, the application is allowed only in part. Respondent No. 4 is directed to renew the E.C. under section 10F in applicant s favour only for the period from January 1, 1994 to January 29, 1994. The impugned orders of respondents Nos. 4 and 3 respectively are modified only to that extent. The interim order stands vacated. No order is made for costs. S.N. Mukherjee (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 534 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... through the accounts of the petitioner for the assessment year 1984-85 held that a sum of Rs. 95,330 escaped assessment and accordingly passed order of reassessment on August 22, 1986 which was upheld by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on February 5, 1987. It was that order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner which was assailed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4.. On the facts, above stated, it is clear that no fresh material de hors the material available at the time of the first assessment, came to the notice of the successor in office. It might be that there had been lack of proper case and non-application of mind by the assessing authority at the stage of passing the order of assessment but that, in our view, would not justify exercise of power under section 14(4) of the Act. We, therefore, cannot sustain the order under revision. It is accordingly set aside. The tax revision case is allowed but in the circumstances of the case without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 533 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contended that no tax was payable under the scheme and, therefore, levy of interest is totally unjustified in the light of a decision of Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer 1994 94 STC 422. This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Frick India Limited v. State of Haryana 1994 95 STC 188. Since the withdrawal of the benefits of exemption has been held to be invalid, there is no justification in the levy of interest on the amount of tax due. It was the notional tax which was required to be determined and that was so done by the Assessing Authority while making assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 vide order dated August 24, 1992. The writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the revisional authority on March 17, 1994 and July 25, 1994 and the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated February 1, 1995 are quashed so far as withdrawal of benefit of exemption certificate is concerned. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 532 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rice Company s case 1984 55 STC 292 (AP). The Tribunal having noticed the provisions of section 38(4), held that the assessing authority had jurisdiction at the relevant time and that the assessment made by the officer was validated by section 38(4) of the Amendment Act. Thus the Tribunal upheld the contention of the Revenue. The Tribunal also pointed out that the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) had jurisdiction over two districts of Ananthapur and Kurnool as regular Commercial Tax Officer and therefore the assessment made by him was valid. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal has erroneously decided the question of law with reference to the jurisdiction or authority of the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) in assessing the petitioner which led to these T.R.Cs., for the assessment year 1980-81. The tax revision cases are, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 531 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was issued before levying penalty. Today the learned Government Pleader represents that though the provisional order of assessment was served on the petitioner, yet, he concedes that before passing the provisional order of assessment, notice as contemplated under rule 12, read with rule 17(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, the Rules ) has not been served. Inasmuch as rule 17(3) read with rule 12 of the Rules contemplates issuing of notice and giving an opportunity to the dealer before passing provisional order of assessment and also having regard to the provisions of levy of penalty and also the fact that penalty ought to have been imposed only after notice, we are unable to sustain the impugned demand notices. They are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. We hasten to add that this order does not preclude the authority from passing fresh orders of assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 530 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... with this judgment we think it proper to sound a note of caution. To say that no two cases are similar on facts is to stress the obvious. Each case has got to be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances surrounding it. This we have done in the present case. The point to be noted is that there is a thin line of distinction between inspection or examination on the one hand and search on the other. The former may graduate into the latter, especially when the seizure either of the goods or of the books of account is made. It will, therefore, be advisable to comply, wherever possible, with the provisions of rule 58 so as to avoid the possibility of the action being challenged later. Similarly, it is advisable to avoid, if possible, taking all the proceedings on a single day so as to steer clear of the charge of duress, coercion or undue influence. 21.. To sum up, this writ petition is dismissed. 22.. The parties shall bear their own costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 529 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... i) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A single Bench of the Kerala High Court in Hamsa Haji v. Sales Tax Officer 1967 20 STC 470 AIR 1968 Ker 193 while dealing with case of mustard seed held The Legislature itself has in clear terms stated in the above section what oil-seeds are. That being so, no question arises as in what way, they are understood in common parlance. If a commodity satisfies the definition which the Legislature has given to the word oil-seeds it is an oil-seed within the meaning of the said provision. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner succeeds in his cause. Consequently, a writ is issued directing respondent-Municipal Committee to charge octroi from the petitioner under item 25 dealing with cotton seeds, oil-seeds of green manuring crops like san hemp and not under item 24 dealing with seeds of vegetables, fruits, flowers, ornamental shrubs and trees and accordingly charge octroi from the petitioner. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 528 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ionerassessee when the goods are transferred from a principal to his selling agent and from the selling agent to the purchaser. 9.. In our judgment all the aspects necessary to fix the liability have been considered by the authorities below consistently in a uniform manner. The very correspondence spells out a relationship of a transfer by Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, in favour of the petitioner-assessee because it is the petitionerassessee who has to forward individual orders on the basis of three months advance booking. It is also available through the material on record that the petitionerassessee gets commission out of the sales apart from the service charges and other particulars in the matter of delivery to the individual customers. We find that there is no error of law and even otherwise the decisions rendered consecutively by the three authorities could be said to be otherwise erroneous. For all these reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 527 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere would be such suppressions during the rest of the year. Therefore the Tribunal further observed that in view of the huge volume of such suppression detected for two days, three times addition would be on lower side. It cannot therefore be said that the assessee had not engaged in similar kind of suppression during the rest of the year. 12.. The position being so crystalline we have no hesitation to hold that the additions made by the officer towards the omission and suppression is reasonable in the facts of this case. We are also fortified in holding so for the reason that the assessee had not raised any objection against the said addition when it was put to him at the pre-assessment stage. In that view of the matter we are inclined to confirm the order of the Tribunal. The said order is not in any way erroneous or illegal. What is contained in the said order is factual findings on appreciation of evidence. The tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 526 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as it rejects the petitioner s claim on the construction of washable apron, is hereby set aside. We hold that the said work is covered under the composition scheme under section 7-D of the Act. 10.. Accordingly in the light of the observations made above we direct that the assessing authority, namely, respondent No. 2, shall take necessary action within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. 11.. In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the said order within the said period, the assessment proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 shall not proceed. 12.. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed. 13.. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within one week. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 525 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... rorem and in complete ignorance of his legal rights. The appellant did not know that there was any provision in the University statute which required that he should obtain the permission of his superior officers. But as the respondent was bent on prohibiting him from taking the examination he had no alternative but to write a letter per force. It is well-settled that any admission made in ignorance of legal rights or under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission. In these circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the letter written by the appellant does not put him out of court. As such the application for revision deserves to be allowed. 9.. The application for revision is allowed. The orders of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated September 19, 1995, of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-III), Jaipur, dated September 25, 1992 and of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Central Flying Squad II, Jaipur, dated September 28, 1991 are set aside. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 524 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s and owners who are the members of the petitioner had only hired their vehicles to the respondents at the rate fixed and they are entitled to get payment of the same. If however while making payment respondents have deducted any amount alleging that the same being payable to the sales tax authorities under section 3 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 read with rule 3(A)(2) of the 1987 Rules, the same are illegal, wrongful, mala fide and the authorities withholding the said amount must pay back the same to the operators and/or owners of the said vehicles. Such payment of the balance dues shall be paid with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date the said amount was withheld till the payment is made. The respondents are further directed that the said amount along with interest be paid within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date. 10.. The writ application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ application is allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 523 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, is, on the admitted facts as disclosed by the assessing authority himself in his application under section 10-B for reassessing admittedly, did not exist earlier. In view of this we are clearly of the opinion, this could not be a case covered under section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In fact, proceedings under section 21 initiated by respondent on three different occasions for the same assessment year in question either in appeal or after remand before the assessing authority are still pending. Accordingly we hold that impugned notice dated September 18, 1982, for the assessment year 1974-75 (annexure 10 to the petition) is not sustainable and hereby quashed and the proceedings in pursuance to the same are also set aside. The petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs. But it is without prejudice to the right of the respondents to raise such points as permissible under law in other proceeding pending. Petition allowed.
........
|
