|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 382 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 350 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nths of September and October, 1989, the petitioner is certainly liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent on the turnover of agarbathis. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief for the period from August 29, 1989 to the end of October, 1989. In this view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Cannanore, directing him to modify exhibit P1 so that tax at the rate of 5 per cent is demanded from June 1, 1989 to August 28, 1989 on the turnover of agarbathis, and 10 per cent sales tax is demanded for the sales turnover of agarbathis for the period from August 29, 1989 to October 31, 1989. The original petition is partly allowed. 29.. In the result, all the original petitions stand allowed as indicated above. Each party shall bear its own costs in each case. In some of the original petitions where petitions have been filed to amend the prayer as a result of Act 3 of 1990 replacing of the Ordinance, the petitions are allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd the share capital account. The consideration thus was shown as a cancellation of one debt by another a debt by the company for the value of the machinery purchased and an obligation of the petitioner to subscribe to the face-value of the equity shares. In the face of these entries in the accounts cancelling two interconnected or interdependent debts, the consideration must be held as equivalent, or akin, to cash and cannot be treated as a mere exchange or barter. In the present case also, the shares given in lieu of the plant and machinery, etc., are to be taken as cancellation of one debt by another , as held in the abovesaid 1984 55 STC 371 (Mad.) (Premier Electro Mechanical Fabricators v. State of Tamil Nadu). 3.. Therefore, this tax revision case is allowed and the deletion by the Tribunal, of the abovesaid turnover is set aside, holding that the said turnover is chargeable to tax. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 348 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bad Debts Had Been Written off as Irrecoverable in the Accounts of the Assessee for the asst. yr. 1979-80 as required under s. 36(2)(i) of the IT Act, 1961.
-
1990 (11) TMI 347 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Pursuant to an invitation by the Heavy Vehicles Factory for quotations for supply of certain machinery the respondent obtained quotations from foreign suppliers and submitted to the Heavy Vehicles Factory its quotation. The respondent obtained supply orders and import recommendation certificates from the Heavy Vehicles Factory, against which it imported the machinery and supplied it to the Heavy Vehicles Factory.
Held that:- the respondent had acted under its own independent licence to import and although there was some sort of contract to supply certain specified items to the Heavy Vehicles Factory and it did supply such articles to the Heavy Vehicles Factory, there was no nexus between the import and the sale. The sale was, therefore, not exempt in terms of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
-
1990 (11) TMI 346 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Additional Judge (Revisions) was legally justified in holding the residual oil as groundnut oil simpliciter, even when it had undergone change in its properties by the admixture of chemicals and acids?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court following the judgment of this Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960 (10) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] came to the conclusion that the residue left, after going through the process of acids and chemicals, continues and remains to be the groundnut oil and is taxable at one per cent. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court.
Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant was liable under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to pay tax in respect of the goods sold by it to various allottees?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Whatever be the validity of the finding regarding the question of sale being deferred till the allottees came forward with the permits, it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant produced no evidence to show that the goods were sold by documents while in transit and upon the high seas or anywhere else outside the waters of India.
Findings by the authorities, as confirmed by the High Court, are findings of facts which cannot be interfered with in these proceedings.
-
1990 (11) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the directions of the Union of India contained in Memo No. F. 121(5)-B/66 Vol. 11 dated March 7, 1990 bar the assessment and recovery of the sales tax in the present case?
Whether the Hospitality Organisation is a "dealer" within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Set aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the Hospitality Organisation was not a dealer under the Act liable to sales tax for the assessment year 1963-64. We direct the Tribunal to proceed to give effect to this judgment. We need not formally pass orders setting aside the High Court's order rejecting the petition under section 22(2) as non-maintainable as it has not affected the Tribunal's order.
-
1990 (11) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions of section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, were ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution?
Held that:- Allow this appeal following the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai [1979 (5) TMI 134 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as cannot be ignored by this Bench merely because there was some procedural irregularity (assuming that there had been such a lapse).
Sales Tax Officer will be at liberty to take further action under section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act in accordance with law.
-
1990 (11) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... company petition was disposed of, in the light of the very many aspects raised in the company petition and the facts contained in the inspector s report, it is only fair and proper that the court of first instance mdash the company court mdash evaluates the matter afresh in the light of the inspector s report. We are not expressing any opinion about the merits of the case or about the inspector s report at this juncture. In the light of the subsequent events, we deem it only fair and proper that the court of first instance should consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and, as ordered by the Supreme Court consider the effect of the inspector s report and enter appropriate findings. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge dated January 8, 1981, in the light of the subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court of India and order a remit of the matter to the company court, so that the matter may be disposed of afresh as stated above. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 323 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
... ...
... ... ..... We are satisfied that the ends of justice require that the necessary issues arising on the pleadings in the case should be framed and the matter posted for trial to enable the parties to lead evidence, if any. Since it has not been so done, there has been a denial of opportunity to the appellants/claimants before a decree was passed against them. It is not possible to adjudicate the entire matter in controversy without formulating the issues and posting the case for trial affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if any. On the facts of this case, we hold that the judgment of the learned single judge merits interference, in view of the material irregularity in the procedure adopted in the disposal of the case. We set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and order a remit of the matter to the company judge. The claim will be posted for framing of issues and for trial and then adjudication shall follow on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.
-
1990 (11) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ntion, which apparently, have no substance whatsoever. I may also mention that Mr. Chagla has also submitted that even otherwise, there are certain other petitions pending against this company and it could be said that the company is commercially insolvent. However, in the view that I have taken that the company has no justification to deny its liability which is apparently an admitted amount, it is not necessary for me to go into those questions. I, therefore, pass the following order This petition stands admitted and the company be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and consequently the official liquidator stands appointed to take charge of all the property and the effects of the said company. At this stage, at the request of Mr. Kavlekar, I direct that the official liquidator not to take charge of the assets of the company for a period of six weeks from today. Similarly, the advertisement which should follow be also delayed for a period of six weeks.
-
1990 (11) TMI 321 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... persons entitled to receive those amounts, the claimant will set off those amounts from the principal amount due in this claim and accordingly recalculate the amount due under this decree. The respondent has a further prayer to waive the interest and to allow her to pay the balance amount in instalments. The claim is proved by affidavit as well as the documents produced. The claim is decreed as prayed for with costs. However, the respondents are allowed to pay the principal amount together with one-half interest which is fixed as Rs. 2,700 in monthly instalments of Rs. 450. The first instalment is to be paid on or before November 30, 1990, and the subsequent instalments before the 30th of the succeeding months. If this amount is paid as directed, the balance decree amount will be waived. Failing such payment, the liquidator will be entitled to realise the entire decree amount without any concession. This decree is subject to any set off that may be allowed as directed above.
-
1990 (11) TMI 302 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ) and Newfinds (India) v. Vorion Chemicals and Distilleries Ltd. 1976 46 Comp. Cas. 87 (Mad), and I am inclined to hold that the dispute raised is on a substantial ground and the court will not readily make any order for winding up. I, therefore, pass the following order This petition stands dismissed. However, the amount deposited will remain in court for a period of eight weeks from today, within which time, liberty is given to the petitioners to file an appropriate suit or adopt suitable proceedings for the recovery of the amount due to the petitioners. In the event of the petitioners adopting such proceedings as mentioned above, the amount deposited herein shall stand transferred to the account of the said proceedings for which, if necessary, the petitioners may obtain suitable directions. If no such proceedings are instituted, the amount shall be refunded to the company after the period of eight weeks. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 293 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... have accepted it as correct in law and based on the facts as presented by the Collector. In the circumstances, the ROM application has no merit and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur is also dismissed. 6. So far as the Miscellaneous Application No. E/Misc./661 /90-D, filed by the appellants is concerned, it requires hardly any mention that in Paragraph 3 of our order dated 21-6-1990, we gave clear direction to the Department to pay refund within two months from the date of receipt of the order. As our order has not yet been implemented, we again direct the Department to implement our order immediately, and report compliance to the Registry of this Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned advocate and the learned Senior Departmental Representative in addition to sending one copy to the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur by post.
-
1990 (11) TMI 292 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... nja is a strong evidence against the appellant to conclude that he had abetted the above-said offence. But the show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause why he should not be penalised under Section 117 of the Customs Act. In such circumstances, penalising him under Section 112 without giving notice is not sound. Under Section 117 of the Customs Act, the appellant can be penalised for abetting the offence. The circumstances narrated above reveals that the appellant had abetted the offence. The maximum penalty that can be awarded under Section 117 is Rs. 1,000/-. Accordingly, we alter the imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act to one under Section 117 of the Customs Act, and reduce the penalty to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/-. The confiscation of the vehicle in question and the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 14,000/- is hereby confirmed. The appeal is dismissed subject to above modifications.
-
1990 (11) TMI 291 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty – Customs ... ... ... ... ..... ses would have been to invoke the bond executed by the appellants (guaranteeing re-export of the bags as per the condition contained in Notification No. 97/79-Cus., dated 2-5-1979) and in the event of non-payment of the bond amount, file a civil suit for recovery thereof, against the importers. The powers under Section 125 having been exercised wrongly and without jurisdiction, the order dated 31-3-1987 imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs is set aside and C/Appeal No. 3417/88-C is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants . 8. In view of the above-cited decision, we are of the opinion that the confiscation of the vehicle and imposing redemption fine is not in accordance with law. The department rsquo s remedy is to proceed against the appellant and to enforce the bond. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The imposition of the penalty on the appellant is set aside. The confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of the redemption fine thereon is also set aside.
-
1990 (11) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Notification No. 83/83. Accordingly, the demand of duty has to be worked out modifying the order after extending the benefit of exemption for the previous years. 11. As regards imposition of fine and penalties in the view we have taken on point of valuation and applicability of exemption notification for the previous years, we feel that these penalties have to be reduced and modified proportionately. In the circumstances, we reduce penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- as against imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on appellant firm. Redemption fine levied under Rule 173Q in lieu of confiscation of seized tread rubber is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- as against Rs. 4,000/-. We set aside redemption fine levied under Rule 173Q in lieu of confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery etc. used for manufacture and personal penalties levied on partners as well as on employee of the firm. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 12. Thus, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (11) TMI 289 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... nd her husband, who was lying ill at the time of the seizure, has already expired subsequent to the seizure of the goods in question. He therefore contended that, in view of the fact that she is having children to be maintained, the goods may be allowed to be redeemed on payment of a nominal redemption fine. He also contended that the circumstances of this case do not warrant any imposition of penalty. 10. We have considered these submissions. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we hereby direct the adjudicating authorities that the items at Sl. Nos. 30 to 38 and item No. 80 be released in favour of the appellant on her paying a redemption fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand only). So far as the other items are concerned (except items 30 to 38 and item at Sl. No. 80) these may be released to the appellant forthwith. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 288 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ut no reasons were spelt out in the order to disbelieve the statements of these two persons. In fact, the order does not mention about these statements and they were not discussed in the Adjudication Order. Even in the show cause notice it was mentioned as follows ldquo Shri Dilip Kumar Dutta was found missing on the night of 8-3-1986 between 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. rdquo If they were found missing their statements that they saw the appellant and five or six others going down are open to doubt and the same cannot be implicity relied upon against the appellant without any further corroboration from any independent sources. In such circumstances, I am of opinion that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. In view of these reasonings it is not necessary for me to discuss as to whether the non-mention of the sub-clause of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 vitiates the order. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled for the consequential relief.
-
1990 (11) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ct and that the resultant product would not, therefore, attract excise duty - see Order Nos. 1118 and 1119/90, dated 23-10-1990 in M/s. WimcoPen Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990 in M/s. Milton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II and Order No. 684/89-C, dated 21-11-1989 in M/s. Eagle Flask (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune. 3. While the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the above decisions in support of the appeal, the learned DR, reiterated the submissions put forth by the DR in the decided cases. 4. Having considered the submissions of both sides we do not see any reason to depart from the previous decisions. Accordingly, we hold that the in situ process in the instant appeal also did not amount to rdquo manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and that the resultant product did not attract excise duty. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
........
|
