|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 565 Records
-
2001 (10) TMI 1118 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hen pickle was introduced in the First Schedule to the Act, it was not brought under entry 75 along with food sold in air-tight containers, but it is brought along with chilly powder, coriander powder, under entry 32 taxable at 6 per cent. Therefore the Legislature does not appear to have intended to treat pickle under food at any time. In fact food in the normal connotation means something taken into the system to maintain life and growth and to supply nourishment See State of Tamil Nadu v. KS. M.G. Meenambal and Co. 1984 56 STC 82 (Mad.). However, we do not think it necessary to decide that question because of our finding that pickle is not sold in air-tight containers to fall under entry 75. Therefore we are of the view that pickle was assessable during the year 1991-92 at the general rate and not under entry 75 of the First Schedule to the Act, as held by the Tribunal. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow this revision filed by the assessee. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1117 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on cannot be upheld. In any case this is a pure finding on fact which this Court while sitting in second appeal is not expected to look into. Submis- sion has also been made that certain claims towards the costs of notice, etc., have been allowed along with interest and cost which is quite unusual and is not in accordance with prevalent practice. It may do so but a plaintiff who incurs expenditure in connection with the recovery of his claim is entitled to claim the said expenses and should not be deprived of the legitimate expenses in that behalf. 5.. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal which requires consideration by this Court. The judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court are based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the matter and the findings are correct in law as well as on facts. No interference is called for. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... but is an amount which is payable in terms of the revised corrected returns filed by the assessee. The returns being returns of self-assessments, the basis for calculating the tax is the figures set out in that return. It is wholly impermissible for an assessee to file a defective return, disclaim liability for pay- ment of tax as also of any interest for delayed payment of tax on the basis of that incorrect return and thereafter file a revised return including therein the correct taxable turnover admitting the liability for payment of further amounts by way of tax, and then claim that it is not liable for payment of any interest for the delay in remitting the tax from the date of original return to the date of the revised return. 37.. The levy of interest for the period between the date of filing the incorrect original return and the date on which the revised return was filed and the tax was paid, was lawful. 38.. The writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1115 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee had filed a supplementary return and paid the tax even before that judgment. The fact that the assessee s stand was negatived in the order of assessment that followed only meant that, had the assessee not paid the tax earlier the assessee would have been required to pay the tax within 21 days from the date of notice of demand after the assessment had been made. 21.. The conduct of the assessee in not including these freight charges and subsidy when it filed the original returns, and raising a dispute about the taxability of those items when it filed the supple mentary returns, cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides in the circumstances of the case. The levy of interest on the assessee in these circumstances cannot be upheld. 22.. The interest levied on the assessee under section 24(3) of the Act for these years on the amount of tax on freight and subsidy is, therefore required to be, and is set aside. 23.. The writ petitions are allowed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1114 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ier at the cost of the buyer. In fact, if freight is payable by the buyer, there is no reason why freight is paid by the petitioners who could have sent the goods on freight payable basis. Of course there is no bar against sending of goods after paying freight by the seller and claim reimbursement of the same separately, provided freight is borne on behalf of the buyer and sale is complete on delivery to carrier. This does not appear to be correct on the facts of this case because there is no corresponding expenditure claimed for handling, transit, insurance, etc. Therefore the conclusion is inescapable that sale in this case will be complete only on receipt of the goods by the buyer probably after satisfying with the quality and quantity. Therefore the deduction claimed on freight under the Central Sales Tax Act also is not allowable. We are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim. Accordingly, we reject the tax revision cases. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1113 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal. The same reason holds good to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that bale boards could be brought either under entry No. 63 or entry No. 145 of the First Schedule to the Act, because timber and logs cut into sizes such as beams, rafters and planks, and the bale boards cannot be treated as the same goods. Added to this, it is also relevant to notice that the learned Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and the factual finding recorded by it cannot lightly be interfered with unless there are weighty and substantive grounds for the court to do so. The court can interfere with the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal only when it finds that such finding is based on surmises and conjectures and not on any acceptable legal evidence. That is not the situation obtaining in this case. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the T.R.Cs. should fail and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1112 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il on these grounds, we do not think it necessary to go into the correctness of the other ground as to whether the U.K. companies could have been found guilty of the offences under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Act. Even assuming that they could have been prosecuted and subjected to penalty in lieu of prosecution under section 10A of the Act, we are of the view that the respondent could not have been made liable for somebody else s sins. On these grounds, the respondent was entitled to succeed in the petition and the learned single Judge has rightly directed the refund of penalty amount together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of payment of penalty until refund. We find no substance in appeal. The appeal must, and does fail and is dismissed. Considering the financial crisis the State is facing, learned counsel for the respondent graciously submits that the respondent does not press for costs. Hence we do not pass any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nded that polythene bags are articles of plastic and are covered by entry 113, even though they are containers. There cannot be any doubt that polythene bags are made of plastic material and are plastic article. But, the question is whether they fall under entry 19 or 113. When there is a specific entry 19 relating to containers, we cannot apply entry 113 relating to plastic articles, which is general in nature. Therefore, we cannot agree with the learned Government Pleader. We agree with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. 19.. We do not agree with the aforementioned view also. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that polythene bags would come only within the purview of entry 187 and not within the purview of entry 19 or entry 188 (as it existed during the relevant period) of the First Schedule appended to the Act. 20.. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and the T.R.Cs. are allowed accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1110 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... taken note of as substantiated on the basis of exhibits P15 and P16 produced along with C.M.P. No. 36149 of 1995. 4. The Supreme Court further held in the said decision A failure to file return of taxable turnover may render the assessee liable for any other consequences or penal action as provided by law but cannot attract the liability for payment of penal interest under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act on the parity of reasoning that if a return of turnover would have been filed on the due date then the tax as per return would have become due and payable on that date. So the liability to pay penal interest arises only on the date of service of notice of assessment demanding tax in this case September 28, 1995. Consequently it is made clear that demands in exhibits P7 and P8 are to be effective from September 28, 1995. The original petition is allowed to that extent. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 35239 and 36150 of 1995 in O.P. No. 19339 of 1995 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... background of these facts and with reference to the language employed in the relevant entries in the Central Excise Tariff, Act 1985. 28.. Here it is not the case of the petitioner that it s products are sold only under medical prescription or that it is available only in chemists shops and sold through chemists who are duly licenced or that it is not marketed and promoted for use as a cosmetic or a toiletary item. Counsel for the assessee also fairly stated that its products are advertised on the television. Such advertisements are generally made for consumer products and is meant to address a very large group of potential buyers. It is therefore clear that the products with which we are concerned are not comparable to the product Selsun . 29.. We, therefore, do not find it possible to accept the argument put forth for the petitioners that these products are only to be classified as medicines and taxed accordingly. The writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1108 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of stay application under section 42(4) is an important stage, affecting the Revenue of the State and the right of an individual assessee. It is in the public interest that such applications are quickly disposed of, but not in a routine manner. The order must indicate application of judicial mind. Ordinarily no stay should be granted where dealer has realised money from the consumer, but has not paid to the exchequer. Where court grants stay, it must record exceptional reasons for doing so. 12.. In view of the aforesaid, I allow this writ petition and set aside the order of the first respondent, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated May 16, 2001 and direct the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. The interim order granted by this Court dated August 28, 2001 shall continue till October 16, 2001. The parties shall appear before the first respondent Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on October 15, 2001. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1107 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed. dagger Reported in 2002 128 STC 116 (P and H). provisions of rule 4(3) and (4) of the 1991 Rules cannot be applied by the respondents to the incentives granted to the petitioner under the 1996 Policy read with Incentive Code, 1996 and, therefore, the condition embodied in certificate, annexure P2, requiring it to keep separate accounts of the existing unit and expansion unit is liable to be declared ultra vires to the provisions of the 1996 Policy and Incentive Code, 1996. In view of the above conclusion, we do not consider it necessary to pronounce upon the validity of rule 4(3) and (4) of the 1991 Rules. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The condition incorporated in annexure P2 requiring the petitioner to maintain separate accounts of the existing unit and the expansion unit is declared illegal and quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of exemption to it without insisting on compliance of the said condition. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1106 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ana v. State of Punjab 2002 128 STC 116 (P and H). We do not find any difficulty in holding that the concept of incremental production could not have been invoked and applied for granting the benefit of sales tax deferment in terms of the 1996 Policy and Incentive Code, 1996 and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment on total production in terms of rule 4-B of the 1991 Rules. 11.. We are further of the view that the proceedings initiated by the concerned authorities under the 1948 Act are liable to be invalidated because they are based on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of tax deferment on incremental production only. 12.. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The condition imposed in the deferment certificate that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit under the 1991 Rules on incremental basis is declared illegal and quashed. The petitioner shall get all consequential benefits. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1105 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Ghulam Mohd. evacuee continues to be an evacuee or has died as stated by the appellant and consequently she the appellant becomes the sole heir?
Held that:- As the allottees/lessees of the evacuee property are necessary parties to the proceedings initiated either under Section 8 or Section 14 and the custodian under the Act performs dual duties of administering the property and adjudicating the claims over the evacuee properties under the Act, we find no fault with the judgment impugned holding that both the allottees as well as the Custodian General had locus to challenge the order of the Special Tribunal. The scope of revisional power under the Act is wider than the powers exercisable in revision petitions filed under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure and in appropriate cases the revisional authority can go into the questions of fact to decide the legality and propriety of the action taken and for the purposes of giving appropriate directions.
While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, in the present case, the Custodian General had not committed any error of law by looking into the facts for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether appellant had acquired any interest on the basis of the Will executed by Sardar Begum or the probate issued in his favour. The questions of title with respect to the evacuee property cannot be adjudicated under the Act for which appropriate proceedings are required to be instituted in the civil court. It is further held that with the passage of time Section 8 of the Act has out-lived its utility and has become redundant. No further application under the said section can be entertained and the plea of limitation with respect to the pending disputes has to be decided as per our directions in this judgment. It is hoped that the State Government and the authorities under the Act shall take effective steps to safeguard and protect the properties of the evacuee for whose benefit the Act has been enacted. The judgment of the learned Single Judge 21.8.1991 does not lay good law and the order of the Special Tribunal is not sustainable. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1104 - CEGAT - CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Notification. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand for the Month of November 97 is legal and proper and the same may be confirmed. 4. Since the issue lies in a short compass, we therefore, grant waiver of pre deposit and take up the main appeal itself for final disposal, as per law. 5. We have considered the submission made by both sides and find that in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Combodia Mills Ltd. (supra) and also the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. v. CCE (supra), the ratio of the above decisions has a binding force on this bench. Applying the same ratio, we direct the lower authority to demand duty only for one day in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified to this extent. The stay is also disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2001 (10) TMI 1103 - SUPREME COURT
Whether by not indicating his intention to avail the right to purchase the lands in dispute under section 32, conferred on the first under clause (b) of the proviso to clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 88 of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 within the specified period, will he lose the right?
Held that:- Appeal allowed partly. The first respondent had the right to purchase the lands in dispute till October 1, 1959 but as not having exercised the right to purchase the lands in dispute from the landlord within the statutory period of one year, the first respondent has lost the right to purchase the land in dispute and therefore he cannot have the price of the land fixed under Section 32-G after about 10 years of the expiry of the statutory period. On this aspect the order of the High Court, under challenge, is liable to be set aside.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1102 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... hich are of a judicial nature and is not subject to any directions issued by any other authority, which is not mentioned in the statute. He cannot be directed to represent the Central Government. If such a situation arises, the position of the Competent Authority, who is a primary Tribunal will be open to question by the concerned parties. We do not think that such a situation is contemplated by the scheme of the Act. It will not be prudent on the part of the Competent Authority to do anything which is outside the scope of the provisions of the Act and place himself in an awkward situation. In these appeals, the Tribunal felt that it was necessary to hear the Central Government before passing orders and an opportunity was given to the Central Government to be represented through the Central Government counsel to have themselves represented as per our suggestion or in any other manner deemed fit by them, by appointing any other counsel. Post these appeals on November 28, 2001.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1101 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... estimated addition has been made, was considered by the Jaipur Bench and the Amritsar Bench in the cases referred to earlier. In the cases reported in CIT v. B. S. Badve 1982 138 ITR 682 (Bom) CIT v. Metal Products of India 1984 150 ITR 714 (P and H) CIT v. Ajay Hari Dalmia 1986 157 ITR 145 (Delhi) and Bombay Hardware Syndicate v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 586 (Mad), the courts have taken the view that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, were not proved. Looking to these facts, we are of the view that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposable even on the trading addition. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, cancel the same. In the result, the appeal directed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... submitted that the authority has failed to consider the bona fides of the petitioner. It was submitted that the turnover had been disclosed in full, but a part of it had not been regarded as part of the taxable turnover by reason of bona fide belief that the assessee had entertained having regard to the earlier judgments of this Court, and therefore, penalty levied was wholly unwarranted. The levy of penalty without considering the bona fides of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent it upholds levy of penalty for these years namely, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. The assessing authorities shall now hear the assessee with regard to the question of penalty in relation to assessment for these years and thereafter proceed to make appropriate orders in the light of what has been stated in this order, and in the light of the law otherwise applicable. The writ petitions are partly allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1099 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Immunities - Grant of ... ... ... ... ..... the interest liability only to the balance amount as we find that the applicant had furnished a Bank Guarantee which has been encashed by Revenue and on their inability to fulfil export obligation during the first block of 2 years, the importer have discharged the proportionate duty liability along with the interest chargeable at full rate on that liability. We have also taken into consideration the conduct and the unitended failure of the applicant in discharging his obligation under the notification. 12. emsp The settlement arrived at hereinabove shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts. 13. emsp Attention of all concerned is drawn to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127-H and to provisions of Section 127-J of the Act. Attention of the applicant is also drawn to sub-section 10 of Section 127-C so far as the liability fixed under sub-section (7) of Section 127-C is concerned.
........
|
