|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 644 Records
-
2005 (1) TMI 673 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Murder - seeking grant of bail application u/s 439 CrPC - motive for the commission of the crime - Confessional statements of co-accused - Applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act - witness statements - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no evidence or material collected so far in investigation which may indicate that the petitioner had ever shown any resentment against the deceased for having made allegations against either his personal character or the discharge of his duties as Shankaracharya of the Mutt. The petitioner having kept absolutely quiet for over three years, it does not appeal to reason that he suddenly decided to have Sankararaman murdered and entered into a conspiracy for the said purpose.
No worthwhile prima facie evidence apart from the alleged confessions have been brought to our notice to show that the petitioner along with A-2 and A-4 was party to a conspiracy. The involvement of the petitioner and A-2 and A-4 in the alleged conspiracy is sought to be established by the confessions themselves.
Here, the confessions of A-2 and A-4 were recorded long after the murder when the conspiracy had culminated and, therefore, Section 10 of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service. However, we do not feel the necessity of expressing a concluded opinion on this question in the present case as the matter relates to grant of bail only and the question may be examined more deeply at the appropriate stage.
The material placed before us does not indicate that the talk was with A-6 and A-7 who are alleged to have assaulted the deceased or with A-5, A-8, A-9 and A-10, who are alleged to have been standing outside. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are two other witnesses who have heard the petitioner telling some of the co-accused to eliminate the deceased. The names and identity of these witnesses have not been disclosed on the ground that the interrogation is still in progress. However, these persons are not employees of the Mutt and are strangers. It looks highly improbable that the petitioner would talk about the commission of murder at such a time and place where his talks could be heard by total strangers.
Thus, we are of the opinion that prima facie a strong case has been made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
-
2005 (1) TMI 672 - EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
... ...
... ... ..... of the Sixth Directive, the consideration is always paid by 'the purchaser, the customer or a third party' and never by the supplier or provider itself. The cost incurred by the taxpayer itself in providing meals to its staff therefore cannot form part of the taxable amount for the transaction in question. 30. It follows from the above that Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2)(b) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as precluding a national rule whereby transactions in respect of which an actual consideration is paid are regarded as an application of goods or services for private use, even where that consideration is less than the cost price of the goods or services supplied. Costs 31. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
-
2005 (1) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Shri Ram Lal is entitled for reemployment, if yes, with what details ?
Whether Shri Ghinak Prasad is entitled for reemploymenbt, if yes, with what details, with what details ?
Whether Shri Sampath Prasad is entitled for reemployment, if yes, with what details ?
-
2005 (1) TMI 670 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted in the year 1991. However, in my view, since exemption application under Section 4-A of the Act was moved by the re-constituted firm. Thus the information of re-constitution of the firm came on record and such application should be considered as proper compliance in accordance to Proviso to Section 4-A(2-B) of the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, rejection of exemption application on the alleged ground is not justified. In the circumstances. Divisional Level Committee is directed to issue eligibility certificate, if other conditions are fulfilled in accordance to the law. 12. In the result, revision is allowed and order of Tribunal is set aside. Divisional Level Committee is directed to consider the exemption application and in case, if conditions are fulfilled, eligibility certificate be issued. Divisional Level Committee is also directed to pass appropriate order in accordance to the law within three months from the date of presentation of certificate copy of this order.
-
2005 (1) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the consignment in issue is waste oil within the meaning of the term ‘waste oil’ as per Basel Convention or Hazardous Waste Rules, 1989 as amended in the year 2000 and/or as amended in the year 2003 also having regard to the relevant notifications issued on this aspect?
Held that:- The only appropriate course to protect environments is to direct the destruction of the consignments by incineration in terms as recommended by the Monitoring Committee. It seems that by disposal of the oil under the supervision of Monitoring Committee at the incinerators which have adequate facilities to destroy the oil at a required temperature, there would be no impact on environments.
In regard to 170 containers referred to in the report of the Commissioner of Customs which are also lodged in the same premises in more or less same condition, the Monitoring Committee has noted that these containers have not been claimed by the importers. The details of the importers of these consignments are not on record. Before we issue directions in respect of these 170 containers, it would be necessary to have on record the details of these imports. The concerned authorities, i.e., Jawaharlal Nehru Port or Mumbai Port and all other concerned Departments are directed to furnish to the Monitoring Committee within four weeks up to date information as to the import of the 170 containers, how the consignment was dealt with right from the date of the arrival till date. The Monitoring Committee shall file a report along with its recommendations and on consideration thereof, necessary directions in regard to 170 containers would be issued.
The aforesaid 133 containers are directed to be expeditiously destroyed by incineration as per the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and under its supervision subject to and in terms of this order. The cost of incineration shall be deposited by the importers with the Monitoring Committee within four weeks. The Monitoring Committee will ensure the timely destruction of the oil at the incinerators mentioned in its report. After the destruction of the oil in question, a compliance report shall be filed by the Monitoring Committee. All concerned are directed to render full assistance and cooperation to the Monitoring Committee. In regard to the consignment of Eleven Star Esscon, in case option for recycling is exercised by the Government, the recycling would be done under the supervision of the Monitoring Committee. If the request for recycling is not received by the Monitoring Committee within four weeks, the said consignment would also be destroyed in the same manner as the other consignments.
-
2005 (1) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
Whether resort to dual price fixation classifying its customers into core sector/linked sector and non-core sector/unlinked sector by the respondent and charging different prices for coal from such customers is discriminatory treating the equals as unequals and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Held that:- There is no such law that a particular commodity cannot have a dual fixation of price. Dual fixation of price based on reasonable classification from different types of customers has met with approval from the courts. Monopolistic organizations like Electricity Boards, Petroleum Corporations are having dual price fixation. It is a common feature that Electricity Boards which generate power sell the power at different rates to different types of customers such as domestic, agricultural and industrial consumers. Even different types of industries are charged different rates.
Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.(1987 (4) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT) and M/s. Shri Sita Ram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1990 (3) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT), in our opinion, the High Court did not fall into an error in upholding Clause 10 of the Price Notification dated 14.3.1997. The High Court rightly came to the conclusion that Clause 10 of the Price Notification did not violate the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By evolving the dual price policy and charging lesser price from the core-sector industries the respondent has not treated equals as unequals or that the classification made was not rational.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same.
-
2005 (1) TMI 667 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... is compensated for by public good) Where authority is given by the Legislature to do an act, parties damaged by the doing of it have no legal remedy, but should appeal to the Legislature. As the counsel have failed to show any constitutional flaw of section 39(4), we have no option but to have recourse to the fundamental principles of natural justice in order to ascertain the legality of section 39(4). The maxim, privatum incommodum publico bono pensatur, shows that even if section 39(4) has wronged somebody, a court 39 s hands are tied. In respect of deciding on the equity of an enactment the courts are supposed to go by the well-known dictum Distinguenda sunt tempora distingue tempora, et concordabis legs - Times are to be distinguished distinguish times, and you will make the laws agree. That this principle is very germane to the interpretation of section 39(4) need not be expatiated on. The petitions fail at all points. They are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 666 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nted to give exemption up to certain limit in respect of the product of each of the village industry. It had been specifically stated that if the intent of the Legislature would be to provide exemption up to Rs. 50 lakhs to each manufactured product, it should have been mentioned in the notification and then the same language could be used as mentioned in the notification dated October 1, 1994. The language of the notification is plain and clear and there is no ambiguity. It clearly contemplates exemption to the institution on its manufactured product up to limit of Rs. 50 lakhs in an assessment year. The intent of the Legislature was clear to grant exemption on the turnover of Rs. 50 lakhs only in an assessment year to the manufactured product by the institution. In my opinion, there is no scope of any contrary intendment. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated December 1, 2003 is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is restored.
-
2005 (1) TMI 665 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ery, elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. 39 It is not disputed that it will be necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to apply his mind afresh for the purposes of determining whether the cement concrete spun pipes in question can be described as 39 sanitary fittings 39 and, therefore, whether the conclusion come to in the assessment order already made in respect of that turnover, is erroneous. We are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that what the Sales Tax Officer proposes to do pursuant to the impugned notice amounts to a rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Sales Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to take the proceeding under section 22 of the Act and consequently the proceeding including the notice must be quashed. In the result Revision Nos. 666, 667 and 668 of 1996 filed by the dealer are allowed and the Revision Nos. 915, 916 and 917 of 1996 filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax are dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the purpose of detaining either the vehicle or the goods. The action on the part of respondents in detaining the goods as well as the vehicle of the petitioner is not authorised by law. The petitioner has been complaining of interference with his business and considerable loss and hardship because of the unjustified detention of vehicle as well as goods. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement dated December 30, 2004 issued by the third respondent at annexure A to the writ petition is quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle and the goods detained, forthwith by furnishing a transit pass in favour of the petitioner. Rule issued and made absolute. The respondents having become active to invoke a provision, which was not available and to the detriment of the petitioner, it is appropriate that they pay costs. Accordingly the respondents are directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000 to the petitioner.
-
2005 (1) TMI 663 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... e been issued by Registered Dealers and not by Manufacturers from Depots as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since there is a specific provision to deny the credit in respect of Dealers invoices taken after 30-9-1996 for the invoices issued prior to August 1996, we are in agreement with Revenue s contention. In other words, in respect of the invoices issued by M/s. J.K. Textiles, the Respondents are entitled for the credit. But in respect of the invoices issued by M/s. IOCL, M/s. HPCL, M/s. Bayer (India) Ltd. and by S.V. Rangaswamy and Co., the modvat credit is not admissible in view of the provisions cited by the Revenue. 9. As regards the credit taken on the basis of Certified copies of Bills of Entry, we are in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals) s reasoning. As the receipt of goods and the duty paid nature of the same are not in dispute, there is no justification to deny the modvat credit. In view of the above observations, Revenue s appeal is partially allowed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 662 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... person identifying the addressee 39 s residence or office or building or place of business to his report. The report given by the process-server does not disclose the name of the person who has identified residence of the dealer and it has also not disclosed the name of the person in whose presence copy was affixed. He simply stated that no witness is available. In the circumstances, report cannot be said to be in accordance with sub-rule (5) of rule 77. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, notice under section 21 of the Act has not been served in accordance to the law. Service of the notice under section 21 of the Act on the dealer is condition precedent for a valid proceeding as held by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1980 46 STC 71 1980 UPTC 125. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the proceeding under section 21 of the Act is hereby quashed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 661 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Tax Officer. If, according to the first respondent-petitioner is not eligible for grant of incentive benefits under the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No. 108, then it is for the first respondent to take up the matter with the competent authority for cancellation/modification of the final eligibility certificate issued. In the circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the similar directions as in Vetstar Agros 39 case 2001 124 STC 421 (AP), viz. that petitioner shall not be compelled to pay and, therefore, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of tax pursuant to the impugned order of assessment. This order shall not preclude the first respondent from taking such other action as may be open to it in law with regard to the cancellation/modification of the final eligibility certificate. With the directions and observations as above, writ petition stands disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 660 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ingredients required to attract the levy of purchase tax under section 6 of the Act are not satisfied and accordingly it requires to be held that there is no consumption of oiled sunflower cake and oiled groundnut oil cake in the manufacture of other goods for sale nor there is any consumption otherwise, since even after extraction of oil, the oiled sunflower cake and oiled groundnut cake continue to remain as oil cake with lesser quantity of oil and therefore they continue to remain the same commodity. In view of the above discussion, we cannot sustain the order passed by the revisional authority in SMR. No. 37/96-97 dated May 7, 1997 and the same requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the following ORDER - I. Appeal is allowed. II. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority in SMR. No. 37/1996-97 dated May 7, 1997 is set aside. III. The order passed by the first appellate authority in No. KST. AP. 29/96-97 dated January 20, 1997 is restored. Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (1) TMI 659 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d that the respondents in their joint counter-affidavit have conceded that the State Legislature is competent to enact a law imposing sales tax on zarda only to the extent of four per cent admitting thereby that the impugned enactment to the extent it imposes five per cent tax on zarda was not valid. The reason shown for such admission is the provision of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which authorises the State Legislature to impose tax on declared goods up to four per cent. No notification has been enclosed to show that tobacco was a declared goods under the Central legislation. However, if that be the position, the power of the State Legislature to make a law under entry 54 of the State List notwithstanding, the respondents should take necessary steps to amend the impugned State law in line with the aforesaid statement in the counter-affidavit, if so advised. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
-
2005 (1) TMI 658 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deep welding and can also be used for medicinal purposes but both are chemically and commercially known as oxygen and finding of the Tribunal and Divisional Level Committee in this regard cannot be said to be erroneous and without any basis and therefore, being a finding of fact, it liable to be upheld. Moreover, the applicant also manufactured medical oxygen in unit No. 2 and such medical oxygen has been treated as a commercially different oxygen being only used for medical purposes. But merely because, air product oxygen was manufactured out of a different raw material, by different machines, and by different process and is of better quality, than the industrial oxygen, both being oxygen cannot be said to be different goods. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable on the facts of the case and are not applicable. The order of Tribunal is accordingly upheld. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 657 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993, that the petitioner purchased the land and started construction of the building and applied for finance assistance. The petitioner, according to the counsel has altered his position to his detriment and the respondent cannot withdraw the notification. In our view, there is no factual or legitimate foundation to the petitioner 39 s plea. Facts would show that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory condition of starting production before January 1, 2000. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 2005 139 STC 86 (SC) 2004 8 Supreme 479, the apex court held that the rule of promissory estoppel can be invoked only if, on the basis of representation made by the Government, the industry was established to avail benefit of exemption. There is no factual basis for the petitioner 39 s plea. That being the position, we find no infirmity in the decision rendered by the learned single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 656 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case, seizure is justified and further submitted that since the purchasing parties are not in existence, it is doubtful that the goods will cross the State and be delivered to the purchasers. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it is not necessary to adjudicate the issue relating to validity of seizure of goods. Revenue 39 s case is that the goods may likely be sold inside the State of U.P. and trip sheets may not be surrendered at the exit checkpost. In the circumstances, I direct the authority concerned to issue trip sheet on furnishing of bank guarantee to the amount of tax to secure the interest of Revenue and to ensure the movement of goods outside the State of U.P. The concerned authority may pass appropriate order in both situations in the event trip sheet is not surrendered and in case if it will be surrendered and consider the request for the release of bank guarantee. With these observations, revision is disposed of.
-
2005 (1) TMI 655 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ew of the proviso appended to section 6-B of the Act. Therefore, this issue requires to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 38.. In the result, these revision petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 496 of 1998 dated December 23, 1998 (S.T.R.P. No. 64 of 1999) and in S.T.A. No. 303 of 1999 dated December 10, 1999 (S.T.R.P. No. 57 of 2000) are modified to the extent indicated in the course of our order. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the second issue after looking into the terms of the contract between the parties and in the light of the law declared by the apex Court in Gannon Dunkerley 39 s case 1993 88 STC 204 and Builders Association 39 s case 1989 73 STC 370, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 654 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the petitioner further submits that as the time-limit has already expired to prefer the revision, this Court may grant time to prefer the revision petition. The learned Government Pleader has not raised any serious objection to the same. We find that this Court has already admitted the writ petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and granted interim stay and the matter is pending on the file of this Court. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we grant to the petitioner two weeks 39 time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to prefer the revision petition and it is also open to the petitioner to file a petition for stay and it is needless to state that if any such petition is filed, the Joint Commissioner (CT)(RP), Chennai-5 would consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 8.. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
........
|
