|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 432 Records
-
1996 (3) TMI 496 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s which is accepted by the Revenue and the other alternative method is where the monthly return is found to be incorrect and incomplete and so not accepted, resulting in best of judgment assessment, then tax becomes due and payable only after issue of such order of assessment. In the instant case the returns submitted by the assessee claiming the benefit of Interest Free Sales Tax Deferral Scheme was not accepted by the Revenue. In the instant case the assessment was made under section 12 and therefore interest can be demanded under section 24(3) only after the date of the order of assessment. In this view, the impugned notice is set aside. However, it is open to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings that may be available to them. 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 this the 18th day of March, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 495 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... prices of the petroleum products were used to be fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and the original bills and revised bills were as per the price fixed by the Government. By simply showing the tax component separately in the original bill, it cannot be said that the non-petitioner charges sales tax in excess, attracting the said provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 2.. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board have rightly held that penalty could not be imposed under section 16(1)(j)(ii) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, under the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, there is no substance in the revision. 3.. The revision is summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 494 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or packing of goods for sale,..... shall make and furnish or cause to be furnished declaration in form S.T. 18A........... It is, thus, clear that these provisions are not applicable in the case of goods imported for use by the owner himself. There is nothing in the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-III, Jaipur, that the said electric goods were being imported for sale or use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or generation or distribution of electricity or packing of goods for sale. 5.. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board, Ajmer, have concurrently held that the goods were being imported for the purpose of using them in the hotel of the non-petitioner. This is a finding of fact. No question of law is involved. 6.. Accordingly, the revision petition is summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 493 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Kerala General Sales Tax Act only on the basis of the proceedings of the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry), and the Appellate Tribunal also sustained the order of the Deputy Commissioner only on the basis of the appellate order passed in T.A. No. 127 of 1992. Since we have already quashed and set aside the penalty order, we set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in T.A. No. 1097 of 1992 and restore the order of the assessing authority. 18. Accordingly, these tax revision cases are allowed. As a consequence of our order cancelling penalty, there will be a further direction to the concerned authority to refund an amount of Rs. 67,800 to the assessee on or before May 31, 1996. We make it clear that if the amount is not paid within the time stipulated above, it will carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent from June 1, 1996. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 492 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... les Tax Act, by the prescribed authority accepting in addition to the tax recoverable a sum of money not exceeding Rs. 3,000 or double the amount of tax recoverable whichever is greater. It is not the case of the respondents that the disputed amounts were demanded from the petitioners under section 32 for composition of offences committed by them. Moreover, admittedly penalty by way of five times tax has been demanded from the petitioners which cannot be under section 32 of the APGST Act. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed with costs restricting the amount in the case of W.P. No. 28058 of 1995 to Rs. 43,271 and substituting the same for Rs. 48,656 in respect of which the petitioner sought relief. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and take appropriate action against them if they are found to have violated the law. Advocate s fee Rs. 350 in each. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 491 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f section 17, a penalty can be levied by the Commissioner for the reasons to be recorded in terms of clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of section 17(3). In the present case, according to the facts as they stand, the assessee committed default by not paying monthly tax which was required to be paid by him. Therefore the penalty could be imposed under section 17(3)(ii). But the assessing authority has not even shown as to how he has calculated the penalty of Rs. 43,700. Thus, the question which has been referred by the Board of Revenue is also misleading. Be that as it may, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has rightly remanded the case to the assessing authority to redetermine by proper calculation the amount of penalty leviable under section 17(3)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Thus, we answer this reference in favour of Revenue and against the assessee and direct the assessing authority to redetermine the amount of penalty in accordance with law. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
-
1996 (3) TMI 490 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the choice of the assessee. The reason is simple that relationship between coconut oil, coconut oil cake and copra in regard thereto is to be understood on the basis of inter-connection thereof. 6.. Although it is not possible to understand as to why the assessee is claiming, reduction of tax due on the purchase turnover of copra confining it only to coconut oil cake, it is not necessary in view of the situation of the use of conjunction and in the said explanation. Apart therefrom, the facet that is highlighted, as stated above by the trial authority regarding collection of the entire tax takes out the matter out of the province of reduction . If the tax is collected by the dealer, it has to be remitted to the tax authority. In view of this aspect also, it is not possible to exercise powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Accordingly the revision case stands dismissed and the orders of the lower authorities stand confirmed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 489 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt read in isolation, is a case of works contract, it would not be a salvation because even if in the process of executing a works contract, a transfer of property in goods takes place in the course of an inter-State sale, the State would not get any power to levy tax on such a transfer, in view of the declaration of law in the context by the Supreme Court 1989 73 STC 370 (Builders Association of India v. Union of India). Therefore even on an alternative assumption of the supply being under the works contract, the proceeding would not get any kind of justification. For the above reasons the revision case is allowed and consequently the impugned order (annexure C) gets quashed and set aside and in its turn the order dated June 16, 1988 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Incometax and Sales Tax, Palakkad (annexure B) in S.T. Appeal No. 150 of 1987 is endorsed and confirmed, whereby the penalty proceedings stand cancelled. Order accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 488 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... d in this case. Clause 10 of the Scheme runs as under Incentive is a concession.-The incentive scheme is in the nature of a concession and it shall not confer any right to any industrial unit/entrepreneur to claim benefit provided for under it. 6.. The Tribunal has been conferred extraordinary jurisdiction under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would not be proper and expedient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The facts that the review application was not moved in time and the time prescribed for reviewing the order, annexure 2, has expired are of no material consequences in view of the above quoted provision of clause 7(e) of the scheme and the imposition of penalty under section 22A(7) of the Act for evasion of tax. 7.. Accordingly, the application moved under section 8, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 487 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... overnment in this behalf, the driver or any other person in-charge of any goods vehicle or boat shall stop the goods vehicle or boat as the case may be. In the instant case there is no proof to show that the vehicle which was carrying timber logs from Tuticorin to Coimbatore was asked to stop at any of the checkposts nor is there an allegation of disobedience of such direction to stop. The conclusion reached by the officer that the vehicle has avoided the check-posts en route to Coimbatore does not appear to be reasonable. The last reason given for the detention of the consignment is suspicion by the officer regarding the bona fides of the transaction. A suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof or reasonable ground. Since, the detention is against the provisions of the Act, the consignment should be released forthwith. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 486 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s connection, we are supported by the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Brooke Bond India Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1982 51 STC 357, wherein a similar question under the U.P. Sales Tax Act came up for interpretation and their Lordships have interpreted the aforesaid expression part thereof . Under section 7(1-B) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the expression part thereof appeared and their Lordships have interpreted the expression part thereof to mean that it should be proportionately adopted for part of month and not for the whole of the month, and like view has been expressed in Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1985 59 STC 52 (Mad.) and Lamina Suspension Products (P.) Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1991 187 ITR 105 (AP). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct and hence, we answer this reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (3) TMI 485 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fixed by the Government of India on the basis of recommendation of the Oil Price Committee and the pool account was created to compensate those refineries, whose retention price is higher than the sale price. Hence, I am of the opinion that the amount received by the refinery from the pool account cannot form part of the sale price and also the turnover . Therefore, the Superintendent of Taxes had no right or jurisdiction to levy tax on the amount received from the pool account. In view of the above, the orders of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes and the consolidated order dated November 16, 1993, passed by the Commissioner of Taxes are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of assessment and the consolidated order dated November 16, 1993, passed by the respondents. In the result, the petitions are allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, I make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 484 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he matter, we find that the Board of Revenue was right in holding that in terms of the certificate of eligibility, the assessee was entitled to exemption of the whole of inter-State sales from tax under the Central Act, and once the eligibility certificate is issued by the competent authority, the departmental authorities are duty-bound to abide by it till the competent authority has revoked or amended the same. In the result, we find that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the dealer is eligible to avail of the exemption under the said notification dated June 29, 1982 in respect of the inter-State sales of goods manufactured by the dealer by virtue of the eligibility certificate and it was not open to taxing authorities to go behind the certificate in finding out whether or not the dealer was eligible in terms of the notification. 10.. The reference is therefore answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (3) TMI 483 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on December 24, 1995. The petitioner exhausted by November 18, 1995 the way bills issued to it earlier. In the circumstances, no further orders are necessary in the present writ petition for issuance of way bills. However, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in vehemently seeking to justify their action in making the demand of Rs. 64,000 towards the estimated tax and penalty on the lost way bills we are impelled to impose costs while disposing of this writ petition. We direct both the respondents to pay Rs. 500 each to the petitioner within three weeks from today. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes shall inform the respondents of this direction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with costs as above. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, is directed to circulate copies of this order to all the Deputy Commissioners (Commercial Taxes) in all divisions in the State and also to all the Commercial Tax Officers working under them.
-
1996 (3) TMI 482 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... horities has been emphasised in several judgments of the Supreme Court including a Constitution Bench judgment in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 10769 of 1995 (Haryana Cotton Mills P. Ltd. Tohana v. State of Haryana) decided on December 8, 1995. In view of the above legal position, we quash the rejection of the petitioner s appeal by the Higher Level Screening Committee and direct that Higher Level Screening Committee shall reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Higher Level Screening Committee is further directed to decide the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned order within a period of one month after issuing notice to the petitioner for a specific date of hearing, on receipt of a copy of this order. The registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No. 2.
-
1996 (3) TMI 481 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1977 CTR 156 (Orissa) is an authority for the view that Tribunal has power to restore an appeal which was decided ex parte in the absence of the respondent on merits, impugned order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible and is vacated. The matter shall now be considered afresh by the Tribunal on the premises that it has power to direct restoration. It shall consider whether facts situation presented by the petitioner makes out a case for restoration. Send back the records of Tribunal forthwith. 7.. A copy of our order shall be sent by the Chairman of the Tribunal to the appropriate authorities, conveying our displeasure over the manner in which two Members of the Tribunal have acted. It goes without saying that competent and efficient adjudicators are to be posted in Tribunals, because upon their proper adjudication depends and hangs fate of the litigants. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated. No costs. P.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 480 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om such dealings by him only and not by knowing who he is. We are, however, not required to proceed with this line of investigation of the matter as the law itself has taken all such transactions of sale by the Central or the State Governments within its ambit and the issues in this behalf are answered in full by the Supreme Court in Vrajlal Manilal and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1986 63 STC 1 AIR 1986 SC 1085. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed but without costs. After the judgment is delivered, Sri P. Innayya Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, made an oral prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and for suspension of the above judgment. We do not find that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is rejected. The prayer for suspension of the above judgment is also rejected. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 479 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in his return. There is no basis for such an assumption in revisional proceeding, in the absence of any proof. It is possible that the appellant might not have sold any food at all. Such failure to sell food items may amount to a violation of CL-9 licence. If the appellant had violated the provisions of condition 7 of CL-9 licence, it is for the excise authorities to take action against him for such violation. Merely because under CL-9 licence sale of liquor is limited with supply of meals and refreshment, the revisional authority in the absence of any proof, could not have assumed that the appellant was in fact serving food and aerated water along with liquor, of a value of Rs. 2,25,000. As there is no basis for inclusion of Rs. 2,25,000 to the taxable turnover, the same is liable to be interfered with. 7.. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the order of the revisional authority is set aside and the order of the appellate authority is restored. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 478 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... en the petitioner cannot claim it as inter-State sale. The order of assessment in the instant case does not refer to the relevant provisions of the statute nor to the large volume of case law. According to the law of the land, situs of sale is not conclusive. Therefore, the order under examination being perfunctory, is liable to be set aside. It is also seem that the denial of the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons who gave statements is a clear case of violation of natural justice. The assessing officer erred in stating that the assessee has been given fair opportunity. For the foregiving reasons the impugned order is set aside. The matter will stand restored to the file of the assessing officer for passing fresh orders. 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 this the 22nd day of March, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 477 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tock and closing stock of 127.100 gms. could be characterised as suppression in any manner. The Tribunal added up the above two figures to work out the quantum of suppression amounting to Rs. 66,500. 6.. In conclusion the Tribunal characterised the method of estimation of turnover at 4 to 6 times of the average running stock as applicable to a situation exhibiting continuous pattern of suppression and not to the factual matrix presented in the instant case. 7.. The Tribunal held that the estimation of turnover would be a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the actual omission and suppression of Rs. 66,500. 8.. Taking into consideration factual peculiarities as considered by the Tribunal even though it is obvious that this amount of Rs. 43,000 could not be considered as suppression, we do not think that there is any reason to interfere in exercise of powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Revision case stands dismissed as above. Petition dismissed.
........
|
