|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 951 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oner showing that under which importer is required to furnish separate declarations in form No. S.T. 18A for each article in respect of goods covered by separate invoice but carried in the same vehicle. The preliminary object of the declaration under form No. 18A is merely to secure undertaking of the importer of goods through the transporter for due payment of tax on dealing of such goods. Where such undertaking exists in the prescribed form in respect of all the goods with which it is accompanying there is compliance of the provision. It is not requirement of the statute that in respect of separate invoice, the assessee must furnish separate declaration. In absence of any such statutory requirement, no penalty can be sustained, where the undertaking required in form No. S.T. 18A was found to be accompanied the entire goods in transit at the time of checking. 7.. Accordingly the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 950 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -89. The petitioner had also remitted the tax as calculated by it in the returns. If the same is not acceptable to the assessing authority, he has to complete the assessment as contemplated under section 17(3) of the Act read with rule 18 of the Rules. This admittedly has not been done. If that be so, exhibits P-1(a), P-1(b) and P-1(c) demands cannot stand. The said demands are accordingly quashed. 3.. Now coming to the question of the demand under exhibit P-1(d), if the returns filed by the petitioner are not acceptable, the assessing authority can make a provisional assessment as contemplated under rule 21(9) of the Rules and thereafter, raise the demand. This also has not been done. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to make the provisional assessment as above, this exhibit P-1(d) also is quashed. The original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 1826 of 2000 in O.P. No. 1159 of 2000-K dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 949 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s which is not intended by the Act. This contention is not correct. Some of the sales have been made against form III-A and if the Revenue was right in its contention, it could have taxed such sales by ignoring form III-A, as according to it the same was not applicable. As regards the sales made against form III-B, the purchaser being holder o recognition certificate and purchasing the goods in question for use as raw material, the sales were exempt from sales tax. This would be so exempt even if they had made purchases right from the railways. Therefore, if tax has not been levied, it is not because of the issue of form III-A by the petitioner to the railways but by the Revenue s own inaction in other respects, as pointed out above. 8.. For the above reasons, we find that the notices in question are without jurisdiction and justification and deserve to be quashed. 9.. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and the aforesaid notices are hereby quashed. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 948 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nding has not been reached by the assessing officer, nor was he required to. Therefore, making of assessment on that basis cannot deprive the Revenue from challenging the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the merits before the Board. The Board could not decline to decide that issue by resorting to short circuit the proceeding. The fact is that these appeals before the Board have not become infructuous by giving effect to directions of the Deputy Commissioner by the assessing officer. If that were so, it would be easiest to scuttle the remedy of the assessee against the orders made by the appellate authority by giving effect to it before the remedial proceedings are over. That cannot be countenanced. 4.. Accordingly these petitions are allowed. The order of the Board holding the appeal pending before it has become infructuous in each case is set aside. The learned Board is directed to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law on merits. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 947 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated in the report that Rs. 2,318.40 lakhs were obtained by the unit as loan from financial institutions or from the scheduled banks. In the circumstances, there was no reason for depriving the dealer of his claim in respect of fully operational expenses and interest paid to the financial institutions. 45.. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Revision No. 53(L) of 1997 deserves to be dismissed. 46.. The net result is that Revision No. 700 of 1997 filed by M/s. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd., is allowed and it is held that the unit was entitled to include the fixed capital investment of Rs. 16,21,54,452 as on August 12, 1988 in the fixed capital investment provided under notification dated July 27, 1991. The Department s Revision No. 53(L) of 1997 is hereby dismissed. The Divisional Level Committee is directed to issue a revised eligibility certificate to the revisionist in accordance with what has been held above. Assessee s petition allowed and department s petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 946 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... incentive under the scheme is not the exemption from levy of sales tax, but from payment of sales tax only up to the prescribed limit of quantum. The conclusion is irresistible that it is not permissible, as feasible in law for an assessee to claim the benefit of both the notification dated September 8, 1976 and of the incentive scheme of 1987. This purchase of raw material must suffer tax at the concessional rate under section 5C, if available to him, without availing benefit of notification dated September 8, 1976. Once this conclusion is reached the consequence is that the assessing officer rightly levied tax under section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act of such turnover of purchase of whole pulses as raw material and the levy of interest on quantification of such additional demand under section 11B(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which has rightly been affirmed by the Rajasthan Tax Board. Accordingly the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 945 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the consignee when he has done all that he could have done. 13.. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that by carrying unfilled form S.T. 18A along with the goods, the assessee has not breached the provisions of section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. 14.. Moreover, the substantive part of the declaration in form S.T. 18A is the requisite declaration and undoubtedly by the importer of goods as envisaged in the form about payment of tax. That undoubtedly the respondent has given and the other particulars referred in the form when are unequivocally available from all other requisite documents, about veracity of which there is no doubt, it cannot be said that such a mistake was more than a technical breach of procedural provision. The case will squarely be within the ratio of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1970 25 STC 211 (SC). 15.. In the result, this revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 944 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssion. The demand notice in pursuance of the order has also been issued to the transporter only. In these circumstances, the respondent-dealer, who claims to be the consignee of the goods, does not get a right to challenge the order of penalty levied on carrier of goods merely because he had chosen to secure release of goods on payment of penalty. 15.. The premise on which the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Board had proceeded, is that demand notice has been issued against the consignee without there being any order against him, is non-existent. The order setting aside the penalty on such non-existent premise cannot be sustained. 16.. It may be further noticed that no appeal was filed by the transporter nor he was party to any appeal at any time. 17.. Accordingly this revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, are set aside and the order of the assessing officer is restored. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 943 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rty in goods on the theory of accretion to the movable property is only one part of the contract on the basis of which it has to be considered as works contract. But the other part of the contract stipulates movement of goods from one State to another and hence both being integral part of contract it has to be considered an interState sale of works contract which is not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax and on which the provision of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be applied. 14.. We are therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in law in coming to the conclusion that it was a works contract within the State of Karnataka liable to tax under entry 24 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with secction 5B thereof, since the contract itself contemplated movement of such deemed sale from the State of Karnataka to Andhra Pradesh. 15.. The revision is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is quashed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 942 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... By notification dated May 7, 1990 which operated from May 7, 1990 to July 26, 1991, the benefit which was extended to those industrial units which commenced commercial production during this intervening period by the Rajasthan High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court, on the ground that withdrawal of the scheme under Central Sales Tax Act for limited period was not supported by any material to be on the ground of any public interest and allowing such discontinuance will result in hostile discrimination towards the units coming into production during the clouded period. 12.. The Tribunal has merely followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mills 1999 115 STC 25, for directing the District Level Screening Committee for granting eligibility certificate to the respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act. No interference is required to be made. 13.. Accordingly, this revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 941 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se in no uncertain term that for availing benefit of scheme by an expansion project, the same must not only have shown ability to give production up to its full existing capacity but must also give at least 25 per cent extra production of such capacity. In achieving this object, for whom such production is made does not appear to be a relevant factor from the scheme itself, so long as the unit gives increased production in fulfilment of such object, in the absence of specific condition about production for self, it cannot be read into the scheme to truncate its operative field, to the detriment of its objects. 23.. In this view of the matter, the Tax Board was right in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and directing the DLSC to issue necessary eligibility certificate to the respondent-assessee vide its judgment dated February 9, 1999. 24.. I, therefore, find no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 940 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... even if the existence for exercise of such power is shown to exist, and he shall have to suffer such best judgment orders like in the prevent case, when the order is made on the last date of expiry of period prescribed for making such order. If setting aside of such order under section 10C results in that no fresh order can be mad, it shall not only make provision of section 10B(1)(iv) redundant but very provision of making available a remedy to a dealer of setting aside a best judgment order and get an opportunity to explain his case unworkable. An interpretation which renders any part of statute redundant and also renders a provision wholly unworkable cannot be accepted. 26.. The petitions, therefore succeed and are hereby allowed. The orders of the Rajasthan Tax Board under challenge are set aside. 27.. The Rajasthan Tax Board shall now decide the appeals on merit in accordance with law by considering the order dated January 15, 1994 to be in limitation. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 939 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion by saying that dori and fita are a kind of lace and tape, and, in any case, they fall within the entry cotton fabrics of all varieties , and, as such, are covered by the Notification No. S.T. 4064/X-960(4)-58 dated 25th November, 1958, and, are therefore, exempt from tax. 13.. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid reasoning of Allahabad High Court and hold that the expression tapes specified in entry 25(iv) would include elastic tapes and is, accordingly exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of the said notification for the period mentioned therein. 14.. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of assessment dated December 19, 1988 (annexure B) and revisional order dated March 7, 1990 (annexure C) in so far as they hold that elastic tapes are not entitled for exemption under aforesaid notification referred (supra) are quashed. The security amount, if deposited, may be refunded to the petitioner as per the rules. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 938 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax has been levied is not of such stone ballast which have been obtained from the quarries of railway. This is a factual matter and as such we consider it proper that the assessing authority may examine this aspect again and tax may not be levied on that part of the contract where the stacking is of the scattered stones nearby railway line by the assessee and only labour was put in collecting and stacking. Tax could be levied only on that stone which has been procured from the quarries for which royalty was paid. We may also observe that procuring the raw material on payment or lesser payment, i.e., concessional payment is also a sale by the awarder to the contractor as has been held in series of decisions of apex Court. The observation of apex Court in Chandra Bhan Gosain 1963 14 STC 766, is also relevant that even if the material is supplied free, still there can be transfer of property by the contractor to the awarder. 9.. Appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 937 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en added to section 21 with retrospective effect by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991 with effect from March 1, 1973. It is also very strange that the department did not point out at the stage when first appeal and the second appeal were heard by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal against the original assessment order that proceedings under section 21 have already been initiated or that the same have been finalised by order dated February 28, 1979. In any case in view of the finding that the assessing authority himself observed in the order under section 21 that list were sent for verification on March 28, 1978 itself there was no material before the assessing authority to initiate proceedings under section 21 for issuing notice on March 28, 1978. 6.. In view of the discussions made above, the revision is allowed. Impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are set aside. The order of the assessing authority is also set aside. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 936 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mand the matter to respondent to decide the question afresh after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. 11.. Thus, the impugned order of this petition, annexure P6, dated July 9, 1990 is quashed. Similarly, the main impugned order of connected M.P. No. 1539 of 1991, annexure P7, dated July 30, 1991, passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Indore and the consequent demand notices issued, stand hereby quashed. Both the authorities shall now decide the matter in the light of division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India (1992) 62 ELT 241. The respondent/State, if, so desires, shall be at liberty to cite any other judgment on its behalf, which would also be considered by the said authorities. Thus, this and the connected petitions stand disposed of, but, with no order as to costs. Security amount if, deposited, be refunded back of the petitioners after its due verification. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 935 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... came in possession of the property and since then, he continues to be in possession. Under such circumstances, respondent No. I being the lawful owner, so long the decree remains intact, is entitled to continue in possession over the property in dispute. Learned Attorney General urged that, incase respondent No. I is to continue in possession over the property, the interest of the appellants may also to be protected. It is then, learned counsel for the parties made an agreed stetement that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court respondent No. I shall not create any third party right in respect of the property in dispute and further shall deposit the rent/income received from that property in the High Court after deducting the maintenance charges and tax liabilities which shall be subject to the decision of the appeal in the High Court. We order accordingly. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the 1. As are disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 934 - SUPREME COURT
Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to sought quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them under Section 406/420" of the Indian Penal Code (for short the TPC) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad dismissed
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Agreeing with the submission of the appellants that the whole attempt of the complainant is evidently to rope in all the members of the family particularly who are the parents of the Managing Director or Ganga Automobile Ltd. in the instant criminal case without regard to their role or participation in the alleged offences with a sole purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and tyrannizing the appellants of criminal prosecution. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 933 - SC ORDER
LDPE/HDPE pipes being component part of “Drip Irrigation System” classifiable under sub-heading 8424.91 of CET and eligible for benefit of Notification No. 56/95-C.E.
-
2000 (1) TMI 932 - SUPREME COURT
Payment of family pension and death-cum- retirement gratuity to two wives of Narain Lal, who died in 1987 while posted as Managing Director, Rural Development Authority of the State of Bihar
Held that:- After the death of Narain Lal, inquiry was made by the State Government as to which of the wives of Narain Lal was his legal wife. This was on the basis of claims filed by Rameshwari Devi. Inquiry was quite detailed one and there are in fact two witnesses examined during the course of inquiry being (1) Sant Prasad Sharma, teacher, DAV High School, Danapur and (2) Sri Basukinath Sharma, Shahpur Maner who testified to the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal having witnessed the same. That both Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi were living as husband and wife and four sons were born to Yogmaya Devi from this wedlock has also been testified during the course of inquiry by Chandra Shekhar Singh, Rtd. District Judge, Bhagalpur, Smt. (Dr.) Arun Prasad, Sheohar, Smt. S.N. Sinha, w/o Sri S.N. Sinha, ADM and others. Other documentary evidence were also collected which showed Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal were living as husband and wife. Further, the sons of the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal were shown in records as sons of Narain Lal.
Thus Learned single Judge was correct in his judgment to held that children born to Narain Lal from the wedlock with Yogmaya Devi were entitled to share the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attained majority
........
|
