|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 456 Records
-
1999 (2) TMI 648 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , S.R.O. No. 499/90 which did not apply to the petitioner s case in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mill s case 1987 65 STC 1 since the petitioner has set up the unit in 1989 itself as is evident from the provisional certificate of registration issued by the Industries Department. All these were matters which should have been considered by the authorities under the Government notifications while granting eligibility certificate and exemption. These are matters on which discussion of alternate views is required which cannot be allowed to be done by a new incumbent of the second respondent in view of exhibit P3 order. I accordingly quash exhibit P5 order passed by the second respondent. The original petition is allowed as above. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 34551 of 1995 in O.P. No. 15994 of 1994 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 36903 of 1997 in O.P. No. 15994 of 1994 allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 647 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... motu revision, except for declaring the C.T.O. s action of review as impermissible and such declaration will have the effect of justifying the order of the Assistant Commissioner setting aside the review order of the assessing authority. So, it will be a meaningless formality to initiate a suo motu revision and to drag the assessee into it when the revisional authority s only conceivable decision stands predetermined. 10.. In the above circumstances, it will be useless to pursue with the impugned notices of the Additional Commissioner. Hence, the application of the applicant is allowed and the said impugned notices issued by the Additional Commissioner shall not be pursued further. The Commercial Tax Officer is, however, at liberty to submit his memorandum, as discussed above, before the appellate authority before whom appeals against the original assessments are still pending. We make no order as to costs. D. BHARTTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 646 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ment or appeal or revision. The defect is cured when a fresh demand notice is issued in accordance with section 11(3) and that must be issued in the present case as well. Such a defect entitles the dealer to be served with a fresh notice of demand giving at least thirty days for payment after service thereof. The appeal preferred in this case by the applicant-company was quite in order, because the appeal questioned the order of assessment for that purpose, the notice had been duly served. 10.. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Respondent No. 2, Commercial Tax Officer, Strand Road Charge, is directed to comply with the appellate order dated February 18, 1993 passed by respondent No. 1 and to issue a modified demand notice after fresh computation. He is directed to do so within two weeks from the date of this judgment. 11.. The main application is thus finally disposed of. No order is made for cost. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 645 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o claim that the excess amount deposited by the opposite party after realising from the customer has been refunded by it to its purchasing customers. The purchasing customers had not applied to the assessing authority for refund of the amount even after enforcement of the rules in the year 1993. In this view of the matter the excess amount deposited by the dealer after realising from the customers cannot be refunded to the opposite party or to the customers from whom it was realised. 9.. In view of the discussions made above Trade Tax Revision No. 277 of 1999 (A.Y. 1979-80) is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. As regards Trade Tax Revision Nos. 275 of 1999 and 276 of 1999, the same are partly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that only the amount deposited by the assessee in the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 in excess of the amount realised by him from the customers shall be refunded to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (2) TMI 644 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... In view of these circumstances we are of the opinion that the instant application can be disposed of immediately without exchange of affidavits. Accordingly, the impugned notice issued on the bank is hereby set aside and the attachment, if any, made shall not stand any further. It is further directed that the stay petition should be heard and disposed of by the appellate authority on the date as already been fixed. However, the appropriate authority will be competent to proceed according to law after the stay petition is disposed of by the appellate authority. 7.. Before we part with the matter we like to refer to the paragraph 5 of the application wherein Rs. 76,92,307.69 has been shown as the amount of tax demanded. Mr. Saha Roy has pointed out the actual demand is for Rs. 4,86,683. Verbal prayer has been made before us on behalf of the applicant for permission to rectify of this error. Permission is accorded. We make no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (2) TMI 643 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... . In the circumstances, respondent No. 1 is directed to give refund payment order (cash) in favour of the applicant for the sum of Rs. 6,248 within 3 (three) weeks from now. 7.. As regards prayer for cost of the present proceeding, it is reasonable, because earlier the applicant had to approach this Tribunal for having the application for review disposed of. We, therefore, direct respondent No. 1 to pay a token cost of Rs. 250 to the applicant within the said period of 3 (three) weeks from today. 8.. There is no reason in the circumstance of the present case why the respondent should not pay the interest on the amount to be refunded in terms of section 10-B of the 1941 Act. Accordingly, we direct respondent No. 1 to pay the interest calculated in terms of section 10-B to the applicant on the amount to be refunded and that payment should also be made within the said period of 3 (three) weeks from now. Thus, the main application is finally disposed of. Application disposed of.
-
1999 (2) TMI 642 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rify the memorandum of appeal, it necessarily follows that he must authorise an officer under his administrative control. He cannot give the authority to any outsider for obvious reasons and such officer might refuse to carry out the orders of the Commissioner with impunity. The expression authorise means to give authority or official power to do an act, empower, to give authority for, formally sanction an act or proceeding. 5.. From annexure 3 to the writ application, which is an office order dated May 5, 1994, we find that Shri N.N. Satpathy, E.O. No. II (changed to E.O. No. III by corrigendum vide annexure 4) in charge of the office, has been authorised to sign, verify, and file appeals, memo of cross-objections, reference applications and other allied matters before the Tribunal. That being the position, we are not inclined to entertain the writ application. The writ application is disposed of. No costs. PRADIPTA RAY, J.-I agree. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (2) TMI 641 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t been able to satisfy us with regard to the validity of the order despite the undisputed lack of jurisdiction. An authority having no jurisdiction could not have determined the rights of the parties. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was wholly without jurisdiction. Thus, it was rightly set aside by the Revisional Authority. 13.. Lastly, it was contended that the Tribunal could have decided the issue regarding section 40 of the Act which had been raised by the petitioner. It should not have left the issue undecided. Even this contention is of no consequence. We have already found that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is in conformity with the provisions of section 40 of the Act. Thus, the omission of the Tribunal to decide the issue is of no consequence. No other point has been raised. 14.. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 640 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... suffice to say that it is of no consequence as draft notification cannot be equated with a final notification enforceable in law. A dealer in the absence of a final and effective notification is not in a position to collect tax from the customers and rather if it does so, it is liable to be penalised. A dealer cannot be asked to do which is not possible and permissible in law. 9.. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that notifications, annexures P-3 and P-4 shall be operative prospectively, i.e., with effect from the date these were published in the official Gazette. It is clarified that these notifications shall not be operative with effect from the date mentioned therein as the State Government in exercise of its subordinate legislative power can issue notification prospectively and not retrospectively as no power has been conferred on the State Government to legislate retrospectively, by the Legislature. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 639 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... re, even if it is held that the dealer failed to use the goods for the purposes specified in clause (b) of section 8(3), CST Act, it cannot be said that he did so without reasonable excuse. The RC in effect permitted the dealer to purchase these goods for the purpose of job work. The deletion of the offending entry from the RC would have only prospective effect. 18.. In this view of the matter the conduct of the dealer cannot be said to be blameworthy conduct liable to attract penal consequences. Even if it is taken that the entry in the RC had wrongly been made the blame does not attach to the dealer unless it is made out that the dealer caused such entries to be made by fraud or misrepresentation which for one thing is not the case here and for another would not attract section 10(d), CST Act. 19.. In the facts and circumstances of the case the application for revision is, therefore, accepted and the penalty imposed is set aside with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 638 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d that the unit must be in existence for four years only then the exemption is to be given. If a particular unit has functioned for a lesser period, the exemption can be given for that period. At this stage I would not like to go into the question as to whether the petitioner has actually carried on the manufacturing activity at Electronic City and if so for what period. It is for the respondent to find out and satisfy themselves with the evidence which the petitioner may produce. If it is found that the unit has worked during the period February 8, 1992 to November 6, 1993 as claimed by the petitioner, and stopped production subsequently, then exemption for the period the unit carried on its manufacturing activity, necessary certificate be granted. Petitioner would appear before respondents 1 and 2 on March 8, 1999 and the assessment proceedings would be taken after final decision by respondents No. 1/2. Petition stands allowed with the above observations. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 637 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. Thus, the toner and developer used are transformed into the form of print, so they are in existence in another form. But the fuse oil supplied is used for smooth and proper functioning of the machines which will be consumed during the process of functioning and it will not be in existence in any tangible form after the work is over. 32.. Hence, in our view the supply of spare parts and toner and developer amounts to sale as stated supra, whereas in the supply of fuse oil is concerned, there is no element of sale. 33.. Therefore, the petition is allowed partly to the extent of the fuse oil supplied by the petitioner to his consumers under the agreements and to that extent the order of the Appellate Tribunal and assessing authority are set aside and the assessing authority is directed to exempt the value of the fuser oil supplied from payment of sales tax. In other respects we confirm the judgment of the appellate authority and assessing authority. Petition allowed in part.
-
1999 (2) TMI 636 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... .P. No. 114 of 1999, the notice of the Check-post Officer, Poonamallee, dated December 31, 1998 shows that the driver of the vehicle did not stop the vehicle at any check-post either in Karnataka or Tamil Nadu and knowingly avoided all the check-posts both in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. In such circumstance, the failure to obtain transit pass at the first check-post on entering into Tamil Nadu adds strength to the case of evasion of tax as narrated in the notice. Thus, there is no case to quash G.D. No. 1500/98-99/IC/PS dated December 21, 1998 and the subsequent notice dated December 31, 1998 and accordingly the prayer is negatived. In fine, the original petitions in this batch of cases are disposed of as indicated supra. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 23rd day of February, 1999. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (2) TMI 635 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ods was in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and not a local sale. 9.. Our discussion above would clearly lead to the conclusion that none of the assessment orders challenged before us can be set aside. All that can be said is that it is open to the petitioners to file appeals after excluding time spent before the High Court and this Tribunal and prove before the authorities that their sales are within the ambit of section 6(2) read with section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Reserving this liberty to the petitioners we dismiss all the petitions and hold that the impugned G.Os. are not ultra vires of the Central Sales Tax Act. All the petitions are dismissed with the above observations. All interim orders stand vacated. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 23rd day of February, 1999. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 634 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r on assessment or it might, in which case it may be one of escaped assessment or one, for that matter, of over assessment but if it is an error apparent from the record recourse to section 17, RST Act would be permissible. 23.. The question of the AA not having employed the form prescribed for notices under section 17, RST Act does not arise out of the impugned order of the Board. It was not an issue entered into by the Board or raised before it or before the first appellate authority and does not arise in these applications for revision filed by the Revenue. From the record of the case the fact of the form employed for the notice cannot be ascertained. 24.. In view of the above, the applications for revision are accepted and the impugned order of the Board is set aside. No order as to costs. This judgment in original is kept on the file of revision petition No. 22 of 1998 with an authenticated copy kept on the file of revision petition No. 23 of 1998. Applications allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 633 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... State the authority empowered under the 1954 Act has no jurisdiction to impose any penalty under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act as the Act has no application in the case of any evasion of tax taking place outside the State of Rajasthan. This would hold good for the relevant provision of the 1994 Act, viz., section 78 also. If enquiries revealed that the consignee in Delhi was bogus all that the ACTO could have done was to ensure that the goods left the territory of the State of Rajasthan and if he deemed it necessary in addition to inform his counterparts in Delhi of the discovery made by him regarding the consignee not being a registered dealer of Delhi and the granules in transit were not of the quality and value indicated in the bills. 9.. In view of the above the application is allowed and the impugned seizure memo and the notices issued pursuant thereto of September 6, 1996 and September 13, 1996 are quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 632 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... SC) cases are relevant. Even if filtered cloth is not having warp and weft and satisfies the criteria laid down in the judgment referred to above, no tax could be levied. Reassessment order could not have been passed on the basis of the circular issued by the department which are accordingly quashed. If it is found that even in commercial parlance filter cloth could be considered to be textile fabric, then no tax could be levied. If filter cloth is knitted, as alleged then it could be considered to be woven for the purpose of exemption under entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule. Since no material has been placed before this Court as to what is the process of manufacture and also how the filter cloth is made, which also is otherwise in the exclusive jurisdiction of the assessing authority, the assessing authority would be free to proceed for reassessment if filter cloth is not considered to be a textile. Writ petitions are allowed with the above observation. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 631 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndefinite in the sense that the memorandum of cross-objections could be filed before finally hearing of the appeal. Once the appeal is finally heard, then power under section 22(2A) cannot be exercised. It may be by the experience or otherwise that the Legislature had given liberty to the respondent for filing the memorandum of cross-objections even after the expiry of 30 days as was provided before the amendment by Act No. 15 of 1991. In any case, it is the wisdom of the legislation and not in the domain of this Court to consider that aspect. Even in a case where the appeal is filed before the Tribunal by the department the assessee can also file memorandum of cross-objections at any time before the appeal is finally heard. 5.. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the amendment to file the cross-objections is violative of any provisions of Constitution in particular article 14 of the Constitution. 6.. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (2) TMI 630 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore, an ad interim injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants their partners, servants and agents from operating any business or selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in service or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain name Yahooindia.com or any other trademark/domain name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark Yahoo till the disposal of the suit. The defendants and all others acting on their behalf are further restrained from using and/or copying the contents of the programmes of the plaintiff under the domain name Yahoo.com . 18. In terms of the aforesaid order, the application filed by the plaintiff seeking for injunction stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that all opinions and views expressed in this order are my tentative and prima facie view and shall not be treated as the final opinion on the merit of the case.
-
1999 (2) TMI 629 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner that it will lead to discrimination between wholesale dealers and other distributors also has no substance. In so far as the sales tax is concerned they recognise the dealers of these four items only. There may be very many other rationed items and no exemption if afforded to those dealers. It is for the Government to take a policy and legislate on the exemption. There is no discrimination among those dealers dealing only these four items. There is no question of any discrimination in not granting the benefit to other rationed articles. 4.. The petitioner s turnover exceeds Rs. 3 crores in the year 1996 and therefore he cannot be said to be affected by the direction to pay the registration fee based on the turnover of other rationed articles. For the above reasons no grounds are made out to interfere with the notices issued and the original petition is accordingly dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4749 of 1999 in O.P No. 2797 of 1999-G dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
