|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 583 Records
-
2006 (9) TMI 544 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the 1st party proves that they were employed by the 2nd party Management in the job of permanent and perennial in nature?
Whether the 2nd party Management proves that the 1st party workmen were employed under different contractors in the job of permanent and perennial in nature in various departments of the Management?
Whether the 2nd party proves that system of contract labour in respect of the nature of the workers involved in this Reference was not abolished in the 2nd party Industry and that this Reference is not sustainable?
-
2006 (9) TMI 543 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a writ petition is maintainable in contractual matter?
Whether OMC had the available stock of iron ore fines or the only ground to refuse supply thereof was the rise in international prices, are matters which could not have been fully and effectively adjudicated in the writ proceedings?
-
2006 (9) TMI 542 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spondent to consider the objections of the petitioner and pass fresh orders after considering the objections. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that third party records have been relied upon by the respondent while passing the impugned order dated 15.11.2005 and though the petitioner made a request for the copy of the same, it has not been furnished to the petitioner. If the respondent relies upon the third parties' records, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent to furnish the said copies to the petitioner so as to enable him to submit his explanation. Hence, the respondent is also directed to furnish the xerox copy of the third party records, which have been relied upon by the respondent, to the petitioner in case if he intends to pass orders afresh. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of the respondent dated 15.11.2005 as indicated above. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.202 of 2006 is closed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 541 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ra, as affirmed by the Apex Court and no contrary decisions having been shown, the finding of the Commissioner that bulk cleared to the said depots having been ultimately sold in smaller packages and then the assessable value of the goods cleared in bulk from the factory was not correct, cannot be upheld. 8. The plea of the demand being time-barred for major portion is being upheld. 9. The plea of Modvat credit of the duty already paid has to be accepted. However, we are not considering the revaluation of the goods to be called for as arrived by the ld. Commissioner, therefore, the question of eligibility of Modvat credit will not arise. 10. In the facts of this case, there is no reason arrived to impose penalty or interest and the orders of the duty demand, penalty and interest etc. are therefore not sustainable. 11. In view of our findings hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. (Dictated and pronounced in Court on 8-9-2006)
-
2006 (9) TMI 540 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ls admitted. To retain their position on Board.
-
2006 (9) TMI 539 - SUPREME COURT
Whether order of acquittal passed by the trial court in respect of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 legally correct?
-
2006 (9) TMI 538 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... R 479 (All.) to contend that business activities should have been started by the assessee in the relevant previous year. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition laid down in this decision. However, having gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel, we find that the factual scenario in the present case is completely different. Insofar as the present case is concerned, as already pointed out, the assessee was in the business of developing software and it is for this purpose that it had acquired certain infrastructure facilities and had also employed as many as 30 to 40 persons in the relevant previous year who were required to provide the necessary intellectual input for developing the software. It cannot be compared with manufacturing activities as was the situation in the case of Mohan Steel Ltd. (supra). 9. We are of the view that under these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration given the factual matrix of the case.
-
2006 (9) TMI 537 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ade out for the applicability of the ratio excepting the cases covered by the issue of clandestine removal and shortage of inputs etc. The ratio is equal to all categories of the cases by making no distinction. 7. Further, I am of the opinion that the above ratio evolved in the decisions referred herein put the assessee in advantageous position by giving benefit of exemption of penalty and interest amount on payment of the duty at the earliest opportunity, than the assessees who makes deposit of the duty after adjudication of the Show-Cause-Notice. Therefore, the ratio in question cannot be lightly viewed by accepting the contention of the ld. DR. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) who had set aside the interest amount ought to have set aside penalty also. This is a fit case where the penalty is to be waived on all the appellants. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2006 (9) TMI 536 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... open, on facts, we do not wish to interfere. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2006 (9) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Assessing Officer had not been able to show from any cogent material how it could be said that the assessee had received anything over and above the sale price declared by him. Moreover, the assessee had filed a report of an approved valuer, which was based on the land rates fixed by the L&DO. The Assessing Officer did not take this report into consideration nor did he discard it for any valid reason but merely relied upon the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were of the view that merely placing reliance on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer was not enough and that there must be something more to show why the report of the approved valuer is not correct and that the assessee had received something more what had been declared by him in the sale deed. 7. We are of the view that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have not committed any error. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 534 - SUPREME COURT
Whether or not the suit filed by the contractor was maintainable because of the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C.?
Whether or not leave to amend the petition/plaint was granted by the subordinate Judge in accordance with the principles regulating amendments of pleadings?
-
2006 (9) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT
Whether fixation of price of the land in question subject to exercise of option by the tenant was to that extent beneficial to the landlord; but the same would not mean that legal fiction created under 32 of the Tenancy Act would stand effaced?
-
2006 (9) TMI 532 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 978 and 977 of 2005 of Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench, and as reported in 2014 (308) E.L.T. 11 (All.). (Jogendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow). While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court passed the following order “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No merits. The Special leave petition is dismissed.”
-
2006 (9) TMI 531 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 3D). - Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, any transfer, delivery or supply of any goods referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery, or supply and purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made. Even after the introduction of the above provision, the transfer of goods by the partner to the firm as capital contribution will not attract tax liability under section 5(1) at the hands of the partnership because it is not a transaction in the course of business. However, the transaction of purchase will attract tax under section 5A of the KGST Act as the firm namely, the transferee admittedly took this as stock in trade, remade the old ornaments into new ornaments and sold the same in the course of business. Therefore, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. We accordingly confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the revision case.
-
2006 (9) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... STC 108 (SC). (iv) Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. 1995 96 STC 355 (SC) (v) State of Orissa v. Arun Trading Company 2002 125 STC 335 (Orissa). (vi) Anandi Roller Flour Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2001 122 STC 597 (AP). (vii) S.L.S. Textiles Ltd. v. State of A.P. 2002 126 STC 132 (AP). In all these cases, the courts held that whenever the registered dealer was exempted from tax generally , then the benefit under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act is available to the said dealer. In the instant case, there is no general exemption. The specific condition imposed by the State is that only when the total turnover of the dealer does not exceed Rs. 100 crores in a year, it is exempted. This does not speak about the turnover of the goods. This is dealing with the turnover of the dealer and it is a specific condition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. With the result the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 529 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an order imposing such penalty, not exceeding the sum specified in the notice, as he may deem fit. Penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act can only be levied when it was found that the goods were omitted to have been shown in the document or register. In the present case, no such case has been made out. When the goods were checked, it was accompanied by the bill. In pursuance of the show-cause notice, stock register and bill book were produced, in which entries of the goods were duly found. The adverse inference drawn by the authorities below on the ground that in the bill, serial number was mentioned by stamping and it was kept in loose form, which was subsequently bounded, is no ground to infer that the goods were not shown in the books of account. The adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal is erroneous and based on no material and merely on surmises and conjectures. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the penalty is hereby quashed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 528 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e treated as part of the sale consideration. It cannot be seriously disputed that this was the position in law in the State of Punjab. 8.. If the law was not clear, it is open to the State to amend the law either with reference to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act or the Sales Tax Act because this court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar case 1980 46 STC 477, has explained under what circumstances the liability to pay market fee becomes part of the turnover. When the finding of the High Court is that on examining the enactment in question, there is no obligation on the part of the seller to pay the market fee since it is the duty of the buyer to pay the same and seller can realise it from the buyer the conclusion thereof that there was no liability to pay sales tax on the element of market fee is justified. The learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to distinguish the said judgment. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2006 (9) TMI 527 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iness, is not established by conclusive evidence. However if the actual dealer who carried on business is proved, then assessment has to be made on such dealer who did the business. Above all, owner or driver of the vehicle in which goods are transported is only an agent of the consignor or consignee of goods. In other words, their capacity is only representative as agent of the owner. Even though they have absolute liability under section 30B(3), we are of the view that assessment against driver or owner can be done only if the real owner of the goods is not identified. In any case the department 39 s right to assess the driver or owner by virtue of the deeming provision under section 30B(3) does not take away their right to assess actual dealer who carried on business in the State. We therefore uphold the order of the Tribunal, confirming the assessment on the petitioners under section 17(3) read with section 30B(2) of the Act. Tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 526 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng contract where there is no transfer of property. The relief sought in these writ petitions cannot be granted, since granting of exemption is done only in accordance with the statutory provisions by the statutory authorities and not by this court. The writ petitions are dismissed. W.P. No. 22360 of 2004 The writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent herein in No. Nil/2004-2005 dated July 15, 2004 and quash the same. The impugned order in this writ petition is set aside by reserving liberty to the second respondent to furnish necessary details/D3 proposals to the jurisdictional assessing officer. If the jurisdictional assessing officer is satisfied with the details/D3 proposals by the second respondent, it is open to him to proceed further or deviate by D7 procedure. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.
-
2006 (9) TMI 525 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... TC 136 without applying mind to the background in which the observations were made by the Supreme Court. I have been informed that the judgment of this court has been upheld by the honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2007 8 VST 466 2006 27 PHT 339. There is a clear finding in the assessment order that the tax on purchase value of goods was levied under section 9 of the Act. Otherwise export of goods outside the country by the head office is not in dispute. Applying the ratio of judgment in Nipha Export 39 s case 1998 108 STC 337 (P and H) the levy of purchase tax on the petitioner on the purchase value of goods, which were transferred to its head office and were exported from there out of the country is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee in terms of the order passed by this court. The same is directed to be released to the petitioner.
........
|
