|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 567 Records
-
1997 (7) TMI 643 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s not a sale of the entire business, because applicant No. 1 has been continuing in business. It was a sale of only one of its units or concerns. Moreover, it was not also a sale of the entire unit lock, stock and barrel because admittedly stock, stores and other assets of the blending plant at Budge Budge were not sold to the JVC. Therefore, on this point also I agree with the finding reached by the honourable Judicial Member. Hence, in my opinion, the application is to be and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs. 34.. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. 35.. After the judgment is delivered learned advocate for the applicants prays for stay of operation of the judgment and order for six weeks. Learned State Representative objects to such prayer. In the instant case applicants have already deposited tax. So, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by merely staying the operation of the judgment. Hence the prayer is rejected. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 642 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the correctness of Milkhi Ram s case 1992 84 STC 206 (P and H) is under challenge before the Letters Patent Bench, the question regarding rate of tax on the cotton-seed oil has not attained finality. A question of law, thus, would arise under the circumstances. 6.. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following two questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal. No other question of law would arise (1) Whether the interest under section 11-D of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was chargeable from the assessee from the date of filing of the return or from the date of creation of the additional demand of tax? (2) Whether the cotton-seed oil sold by the assessee was edible oil fit for human consumption and to be taxed at the rate of 1 per cent instead of 4 per cent? 7.. Accordingly, we direct the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, to refer the aforesaid two questions of law to this Court for its opinion along with the statement of the case.
-
1997 (7) TMI 641 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ptly submitted to this Court for its satisfaction that the concerned authorities have not failed to perform their legal obligations and have reasonably come to such conclusion. No such report having been submitted by the CBI or any other agency till now in this Court, action on such a report by this Court would be considered, if any when that occasion arises. We also direct that no settlement should be arrived at nor any offence compounded by any authority without prior leave of this Court. We may add that on account of the great public interest involved in this matter, the CBI and other Government agencies must expedite their action to complete the task and prevent pendency of this matter beyond the period necessary. It is needless to observe that the results achieved so far do not match the available time and opportunity for a full investigation ever since the matter came to light. It is of utmost national significance that no further time is lost in completion of the task.
-
1997 (7) TMI 640 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 3), (4) and (5) have been excluded from the group (1). The word exclude means to shut out or to except. The word excluding also appears in the items Nos. 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 22, 36, 49, 54, 55, 64, 70, 75, 80, 87, 93 and 104 of the said notification. They leave no manner of doubt that the material articles and commodities falling in the excluded categories did not attract the specified rate of tax. Inclusion of excluded goods in the Entry Goods would be against the notification and is not permissible. Carving out exceptions itself indicates that the goods excepted are different from the Entry Goods for the purpose of taxation. Item No. 66 of the earlier notification dated March 23, 1989 All types of soap (whether toilet or washing) was of very wide amplitude. There was no exception in it. All types of soap fell under this entry. In this background, it cannot be said that the disputed goods, i.e., Budget Board Soap Powder is included in the Soap Cakes . Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 639 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earlier levy. In our opinion, this is not a proper ground for imposing the levy at the higher rate with retrospective effect. It may be open to the Legislature to impose the levy at the higher rate with prospective operation but levy of taxation at higher rate which really amounts to imposition of tax with retrospective operation has to be justified on proper and cogent grounds. The last four lines of passage extracted above, heavy reliance whereupon was placed by Mr. Gandhi, have therefore to be understood in the context in which the same appear in the decision. So also, reliance placed upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal Paper Mill Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1976 38 STC 163 is of no assistance to Mr. Gandhi, in the light of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the subject. 10.. In the result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 638 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only in case of doubt in regard to the intention of the Legislature manifest on the statutory language. Indeed, the need to resort to any interpretative process arises only where the meaning is not manifest on the plain words of the statute. If the words are plain and clear and directly convey the meaning, there is no need for any interpretation. Keeping the above principle in mind while interpreting the above G.O., we have no hesitation in holding that the benefit of deferment of tax on purchase of raw material to be used in the manufacturing process of the product by the petitioner, is not the subject-matter of the G.O. and the benefit of deferment of tax does not cover purchase tax on the raw material used in manufacturing the products by the units. 15.. For the above reasons we find no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petitions fail they are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 637 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... attention was invited to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 1990 77 STC 82 (SC) 1990 3 SCC 87. The said decision was also considered by the Lordships of the honourable Supreme Court in Digvijay Cement Co. 1997 106 STC 11 1990 3 Scale 150 in para 19 and their Lordships after examining that case also reiterated the law laid down in the case in Indian Cement Ltd. 1988 69 STC 305 (SC) AIR 1988 SC 567. In view of the recent decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Digvijay Cement Co. 1997 106 STC 11 1997 3 Scale 150, there leaves hardly any room for us except to quash the notifications. 9.. In the result, we allow all the aforesaid three petitions and quash the notification dated July 3, 1993 (annexure P-2) and amended notifications dated March 30, 1994 and June 20, 1995 (annexures P-3 and P-3A). No order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 636 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he said provision will come into effect only when the State Government issues notification and declares the point and rate of the tax leviable on the said items. It was further urged by Sri Bharatji Agrawal that neither point nor rate has been declared by notification so far except to the extent notification issued on April 1, 1996 whereby alcohol as defined in the United Provinces Sales of Motor Spirit, Diesel Oil and Alcohol Taxation Act, 1939 has been excluded. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that on the basis of the said notification manufacturers of denatured and rectified spirit are not liable to pay tax under the provisions of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 7.. I agree with the argument put forward by Sri Bharatji Agrawal and set aside the judgment and order passed on March 27, 1997 for the assessment year 1993-94. 8.. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 635 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ustomers on a job work basis does not by itself operate as a transfer of the right to use and that it is at best a permission to use and no more, or a fruitful utilisation of an asset otherwise lying idle. This finding of the Tribunal has not been questioned by the department. The only contention is that in view of the extended definition of sale by Explanation (3B) of section 2(xxi) the transaction will be deemed to be sale exigible to tax under the Act. There is no merit in this contention. The transaction in question as found by the Tribunal cannot in any sense be conceived of as a transfer understood in the sales tax law. We concur with the finding of the Tribunal that there is no transfer of the right by the assessee to use the hydraulic press by various customers. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in these revisions. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 634 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... mption to be raised, in certain circumstances that the goods have been sold within Rajasthan. This is quite different from the presumption raised by the petitioner that the goods were intended for sale within Rajasthan. As the goods left Rajasthan even the presumption provided for in section 22B cannot be raised. 38.. In this view of the matter section 22A, RST Act not being applicable, confined as it is to the checking of evasion of tax under the RST Act in Rajasthan, the question of imposing penalty under section 22A(7), RST Act in cases of goods transiting through Rajasthan cannot arise. The sales tax authorities of Rajasthan can, of course, stop and check any vehicle but if it contains goods coming from another State and bound for another State they can only insist and ensure that the goods leave Rajasthan. 39.. For these reasons both the questions raised in the application are answered in the affirmative and the application itself is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (7) TMI 633 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court in Jia Lal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1781 held thus It was argued that the history of a legislation would be admissible for ascertaining he legislative intent when the question is one of severability. That is so as held by this Court in R.M.D. Chamarabaugwalla s case 1957 SCR 930 AIR 1957 SC 628 at pages 951-952 (of SCR) at pages 636-637 of AIR. Thus after striking out the invalid provisions the remaining provisions stand as a complete code independent of the rest which can be enforced with vigour and vitiality. Therefore the prayer to strike down the entire Act is disallowed. In the result, section 4A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 and Schedule thereto as amended by the Kerala Finance Bill, 1994 are declared unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative. Accordingly,the said provisions are set aside. The writ petition are allowed as above. No order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 10274 of 1994 in O.P. No. 5716 of 1994 dismissed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 632 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tted that it is a case of change of opinion on the same material as was available at the time the assessment proceedings took place. Reopening of assessment proceedings on change of opinion is not permissible under the law. 12.. We have already observed and dealt with the point that the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor 1964 15 STC 719 AIR 1964 SC 1729, was based on the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963 hence on that basis raw skins and dressed skins cannot be considered to be two different items and for the purposes of Central Sales Tax Act, they are to be considered as one item in view of section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 13.. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the notice issued under section 21 of the Central Sales Tax Act to the petitioners, as contained in annexure VI to the petition. 14.. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 631 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he goods are to be delivered to the consignees and to such goods-in-transit, protection as envisaged by sub-section (8) of section 28-A of the Act will be available. If the taxing authorities have reasonable doubt about the destination of the goods and/or custody of the railway, then the goods may be checked and seized by them to satisfy themselves whether the same goods are being transported which were booked from an outstation to the city booking agency and whether the destination of the goods is the city booking agency to which they were booked or some other place. If the railway administration and/or the contractor of the city booking agency is called upon by the sales/trade tax authorities to show the relevant documents in connection with the goods-in-transit, then the former would be liable to produce the same before the latter. 31.. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed subject to the finding recorded and observations made hereinabove. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 630 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . It appears to us that the word cotton fabric at common parlance conveys the meaning of cotton cloth used as such or for manufacturing clothing and other cotton goods, but does not include rags and chindies which are waste products of tailoring industry or old pieces of cloth which has lost utility as cotton fabrics. 5.. Apart from this, in the case of Sree Jagadish Colour Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 1997 107 STC 522 (Kar) ILR 1996 Kar 2052 it has been held by one of us (Bharuka, J.) that the Commissioner had no power to issue clarifications like the one relied upon by the petitioner purporting to exercise his power under section 3A(2) of the Act. In these circumstances we are constrained to hold that cotton rags or chindies as known in common parlance are not cotton fabrics and therefore the same are liable to tax under section 5(1) of the Act as unspecified goods. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed, but without cost. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 629 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... id demand notice and the order, Mrs. Sujatha, learned High Court Government Pleader, replied that such delays are caused sometime because of the lethargy of the serving staff, or quite often because of the deliberate efforts of the assessees themselves who by this process could avoid payment of assessed taxes for considerable length of period. The explanation furnished seems to be quite probable. 7.. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah and Co. 1994 93 STC 406 (SC) cited by Mr. Sujatha, learned High Court Government Pleader, it has been held that if an order is passed within the period of limitation, then the fact that it is served on the dealer after the period of limitation, is of no consequence for computing limitation. 8.. Keeping in view the discussions as made above, we find no valid ground for interfering with the impugned order of the Tribunal. 9.. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 628 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner the materials which he intends to utilise during the proceeding. 3.. Regarding supply of certified copy of the proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Geeta Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1996 100 STC 48, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, referring to rule 87 has held that in order to make the assessee entitled to get the certified copy, two conditions are necessary to be satisfied. Firstly, it should be an order passed by the sales tax authority, and, secondly, it must concern the applicant-dealer. 4.. We, therefore, direct the Sales Tax Officer, opposite party No. 2, to furnish certified copy of the proceeding to the petitioner. The above copies shall be supplied only after proper application and on participation of the petitioner in the proceeding. 5.. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. P.K. Tripathy, J.-I agree. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (7) TMI 627 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 42(1) of the Act. Question No. 1 does not arise from the order of the Tribunal as the point regarding ownership of the goods had not been taken up by the petitioner before any of the authorities, including the Tribunal. It cannot, therefore, be said that question No. 1 arises from the order of the Tribunal. 6.. Question No. 2 relates to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is without any evidence. Findings recorded by the Tribunal, being of fact, question No. 2 is not a referable question of law. 7.. Quantum of penalty to be imposed has to be determined on the basis of facts of each case. The Tribunal, on the basis of findings recorded on facts, imposed the maximum penalty which could be levied under the Act. On this finding as well, no referable question of law arises. Question No. 3 is also declined. This petition, being without merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 626 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ill make appropriate directions to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions sought to be referred to it. 7.. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the question of law regarding disallowance of sales made to the registered purchasing dealers against ST-XXII forms would arise from the order of the Tribunal. The consequential question regarding levy of penalty would also arise from the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law to this Court along with the statement of case for its opinion (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sales made by the assessee against ST-XXII forms to seven registered purchasing dealers were rightly disallowed under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty was leviable under section 10(7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? Application allowed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 625 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ticularly when there is no challenge by the other khadi units. It is unnecessary to examine any other aspect since the above reasoning alone is sufficient to justify the classification. 6. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 8180 of 1995 decided on January 24, 1995, in which a direction was issued to the respondents to grant similar exemption to the petitioner-society in that case as was done in the case of other societies similarly situated. In C.W.P. No. 8180 of 1995, their Lordships had granted the relief to the petitioner because the respondent-State itself had stated in its reply that the petitioner-society had been treated at par with the Punjab Khadi Mandal and other societies with effect from April 1, 1990. 7.. In view of the clear law laid down by their Lordships in Khadi and Village Soap Industries Association s case 1994 95 STC 355 (SC), we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (7) TMI 624 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessment order. Apart from the above, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, in the light of the provisions contained under section 17(6) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act the assessment orders were issued in time as assessment proceedings were pending on the date of publication of the Kerala Finance Act, 1993. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge in Usha Aravind v. Sales Tax Officer (1994) 2 KLT 357. When the statute has allowed the assessing authorities a period of time under sub-section (6) of section 17 to pass assessment orders and if assessment orders are passed within such period, it is not for this Court to conclude that the assessment orders are unsustainable since there was inordinate delay in passing the assessment order. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. In the result, T.R.C. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1996 stand dismissed. C.M.P. No. 1606 of 1996 in T.R.C. No. 51 of 1996 dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
