|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 172 Records
-
1982 (6) TMI 253 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 637/- cannot be considered to be small. Secondly, the grounds of detention disclose that the allegation is the only one of having smuggled goods of the total value of ₹ 2,49,637/- and not item-wise. The question of proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority cannot be considered by bisecting the order as being good in part and bad in part. In any event, in this case, as pointed out above, application of mind by the Detaining Authority as regards the goods valued at ₹ 1,40,000/- which was more than half the value of the goods alleged to be smuggled does not appear to be proper. In our view, therefore, under the circumstances of this case the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was vitiated. 22. The result, therefore, is that the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other proceedings. Writ to be directed to the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison. Detenu set at liberty.
-
1982 (6) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the person from whom the sample was taken to make such arrangements as he might like to challenge the report of the Public Analyst, for example, by making a request to the Magistrate to send the other sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Where the effect of non-compliance with the rule was such as to wholly deprive the right of the person to challenge the Public Analyst's Report by obtaining the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, there might be just cause for complaint, as prejudice would then be writ large. Where no prejudice was caused there could be no cause for complaint. I am clearly of the view that Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was directory and not mandatory. The decisions in Public Prosecutor v. Murli Dhar 1977, Crl. Law Journal 1634 and Bhola Nath v. State 1977 Crl. Law Journal 154 to the extent that they hold that Rule 9(j) was mandatory are not good law. The petition is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 251 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rubber after deducting milling waste or that assessment has been made on that basis. The mention of milling waste separately in the appendices submitted by them by itself does not carry the petitioner any further. A case of discrimination supported by relevant materials has not been made out. However, I have to record the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Rubber Board to the effect that in regards to the assessments made for some periods on Dunlop India Limited, audit objections have been raised and that the entire matter is being looked into by the Rubber Board and further that if it is found that any deduction has been given for milling waste in the case of Dunlop India Limited, the Rubber Board will take steps to rectify the error. In this view, I am unable to agree that a case of discrimination has been made out. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition and the original petition is dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (6) TMI 250 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... ture of goods falling under Item 68 or otherwise. As the hard coke in question is used in the manufacture of coke oven gas and the same is used in the manufacture of fertilizers in the same factory, that Notification fully covered the position. The Assistant Collector had accepted that position and had passed suitable orders on that basis. It was not, therefore, open to the Additional Collector to reopen that position on the basis of the orders as have been passed. They accordingly pleaded that the orders of the Additional Collector be set aside. 4. The Board has considered the different contentions of the appellants. The Board is satisfied that the question of demand has already been disposed of in the Assistant Collector’s orders and, therefore, the Additional Collector was not competent to reopen the issue on the basis of a fresh demand. The Board accordingly sets aside Additional Collector’s orders as legally untenable. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 249 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... s. 17. In conclusion, the Government direct that in respect of the consignments specifically covered in paras 13 to 16 above, the goods be reassessed as stainless steel strips under Item No. 63 (20A) ICT read with notification No. 24-Cus., dated 1-3-73 and consequential refund due be granted to the petitioners. 18. The Government further direct that the goods comprised in all or any of the remaining consignments covered by these proceedings be also re-assessed as stainless steel strips with consequential relief if, on a scrutiny of the relevant import documents (bills of entry and invoices) to be produced by the concerned petitioners and following the relevant definitions and principles as discussed above, the goods are found to be correctly classifiable as stainless steel strips. If in any case, the bill of entry and invoice are available in the Custom House, the same can be taken into account. 19. All the 13 revision applications are disposed of accordingly.
-
1982 (6) TMI 248 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ghing 300 Grams (the minimum quantity limited to a goldsmith), his brother Radhagovinda a certified goldsmith, has however, admitted that the gold was sent by him. The latter’s records showed entries for remaking old ornaments but their weight did not tally with the gold seized. The contravention of Section 8(1) and 42 of Gold (Control) Act for which the orders of confiscation and penalty have been passed, have therefore been clearly established. 3. However considering that the gold was acid gold and records of the certified goldsmith support the claim of remaking of old ornaments, the Government sets aside the orders of absolute confiscation and decide that the gold be allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of ₹ 2500/- within a month hereof. The gold should be disposed of according to law, after release. The orders of penalty are, however, confirmed. The orders of lower authorities are modified to this extent and the application is otherwise rejected.
-
1982 (6) TMI 247 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of an endorsement on their application about the filing of R.T. 12 that no compliance was required as they were not a factory within the meaning of Factories Act. They therefore pleaded that even without going into the question as to whether the two firms were connected or separate, the orders of the Additional Collector should be set aside as he has not contested the finding that none of these were factories within the meaning of the Factories Act and therefore, their production was not covered by Item 68 of the C.E.T. 5. The Board has considered the different contention of the appellants. The Board finds that it is not disputed that the appellants as well as their sister concern are not factories within the meaning of the Factories Act. Their production was not therefore liable to duty under Tariff Item 68. The Additional Collector’s orders are therefore misconceived. The Board accordingly set aside the Additional Collector’s orders and allows the appeal.
-
1982 (6) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the notification effecting the amendment is without the authority of law. 6.. In fact, there is no challenge made to the validity of the amendment of rule 25A of the Rules, though the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the argument that the notification amending the rule was bad inasmuch as it affected the freedom of the petitioners to carry on their trade. That argument, I should necessarily reject, because the amendment does not amount to any prohibition imposed on the petitioners to carry on the trade. It only brings to tax the turnover of the petitioners which was earlier exempt and no more. 7.. In the result, I do not see any illegality in the impugned notices issued by the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer. Therefore, they do not call for interference. 8.. For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are rejected without a rule being issued. 9.. Smt. Vanaja, the learned Government Pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
-
1982 (6) TMI 245 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to in the document will represent the turnover of the assessee s business. But in the matter of levy of penalty the fact that the assessee is not able to explain certain documents will not ipso facto lead to the fact that the assessee has wilfully suppressed the turnover. As has been held by this Court in Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 STC 121 (FB) in order that penalty may be imposed, it must be possible first to come to the conclusion that there was actually a turnover and further that the turnover was not disclosed by the assessee and that merely because the assessment is a best judgment assessment the levy of penalty is not automatic. Since the assessee in this case has been contending that he has no turnover at all for the purpose of tax he cannot be said to be guilty of concealment of the portion of the turnover assessed. We, therefore, feel that the order of the Tribunal does not call for our interference. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has taken the view that the assessee has sold the mirror as an accessory to the cycle or as its spare part, and therefore, it should be brought under the entry accessory to cycle and not under the entry glass and glassware including sheet glass and plate glass, mirror, laboratory glassware, etc. Admittedly, the assessee is not a dealer in glassware and he is only a dealer in cycles. For persons who require a mirror to be fitted into cycles, the mirror is given as a spare part for the cycle or as an accessory. Therefore, as has already been held by this Court in Yacub Hussain v. State of Tamil Nadu 1980 46 STC 470 the purpose for which the commodity is used is often a guiding factor to determine its character. In this case, the purpose for which the mirror is sold is to use it as a rear view mirror and not for the purpose of reflection. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in this case. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1982 (6) TMI 243 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... form has been statutorily prescribed, which has also specified the documents to be annexed and filed. Such word document as mentioned in form A, in my view, on the definition of the same, may also include the certified copy of the order moved against and as such, on the views as expressed earlier, I hold that an assessee willing to annex the certified copy would be entitled to claim the credit for the days required by him to obtain the same, subject of course to the other provisions of the Limitation Act. For the views as above, this application should succeed and I order accordingly. The rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. The case should now go back before the Tribunal, for due and appropriate determination of the application for condonation of delay as filed by the assessee, and then to decide and determine, if necessary, the application for reference in accordance with law. Prayer for stay of operation of the order is refused. Ordered accordingly.
-
1982 (6) TMI 242 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to be a holiday and the petitioner was supposed to attend the office of the Assessing Authority on that date. According to the notice, the assessee had to prove the genuineness of the transactions in favour of M/s. Om Parkash and Sons and M/s. Brij Bhushan Jai Gopal and had further to explain the entries in the diary seized from Shri Ram Singh, father of the proprietor of the assessee-firm. The assessee did require some time to prove all the facts. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, we answer question No. (1) in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The Assessing Authority may, however, proceed to make assessment in accordance with law. In view of the reply to question No. (1), question No. (2) does not arise. No order as to costs. SURINDER SINGH, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1982 (6) TMI 241 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the petitioner. Arjan Radio House v. Assessing Authority (Excise and Taxation Officer) Gurdaspur 1973 31 STC 49 is an authority regarding the non-publication of the cancellation of the registration certificate in the official Gazette. In such a situation, if the petitioner-firm continues to transact with the Amritsar firm, the sales made by it to the said firm, would not be chargeable to sales tax, the second part of the referred question is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the petitioner and against the department. By way of clarification it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in maintaining the disallowance of the claim of Rs. 5,21,075.50 as deduction made by the applicant out of its turnover for the assessment year under consideration. This deduction ought to have been allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this reference. RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1982 (6) TMI 240 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... e circumstances mentioned above is not sufficient to show that voice is that of the Government or hands are of the Government or that the company is an agent or surrogate of the State, in fact owned by the State, in truth controlled by the State and in effect an incarnation of the State . It is no more than a Government company under the company law and not a limb of Government. In this view, I uphold the contention of the first respondent company that it is not an. instrumentality of the State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned action of the company offends his fundamental right to equality guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. Such a claim cannot be put forward against the company as it is not the State or an authority under article 12. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the merits canvassed in the petition. The petition is dismissed, but under the circumstances, without costs.
-
1982 (6) TMI 239 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Powers of Central Government to authorise with permission of High Court to takeover management or control of industrial undertaking
-
1982 (6) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Directors – Power of, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398, Power of Tribunal on application under sections 397 and 398
-
1982 (6) TMI 218 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... ese are our reasons for the following order which was passed on 25th May, 1982 For the reasons to be recorded later, leave under rules 147 and 148 of the Bombay High Court Rules granted to the respondents, to take out a N/M in terms of the draft N/M submitted to the court. N/M returnable on June 14, 1982. Mr. Kapadia waives service of the N/M. In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b) of the N/M on the following conditions (1)Shares mentioned in prayers ( a) and (b) are to be sold at the price not less than Rs. 75 per share. (2)Appellant-company have a preferential right to purchase these shares at the maximum offered price, provided the appellants purchase the entire lot of shares mentioned in paras. 18 and 20 of the affidavit in support, in case the entire lot is put to sale. If the entire lot is not sold, the appellant-company will be entitled to purchase the shares in question at the above said price. (3)The entire sale proceeds to be deposited in court.
-
1982 (6) TMI 217 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Accounts - To be kept by company ... ... ... ... ..... are directed further to give inspection of all the documents referred to and relied upon by them in their company petition to respondents Nos. 2 to 8. The inspection will be given from day to day forthwith. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 to file their affidavit in reply in Company Petition No. 714 of 1981, within 6 weeks from today. No further adjournments will be granted for this purpose. This time is given on the assumption that inspection will be offered by the petitioners from day to day as provided hereinabove. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are, however, required to file their affidavit within 6 weeks irrespective of their completing inspection or otherwise. This, of course is, provided inspection has been offered by the petitioners from day to day. Costs of the company petition will be costs in the cause. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 to give a copy of their affidavit in reply to the petitioners on or before August 9, 1982, and the petition to be on board for hearing on 11th August, 1982.
-
1982 (6) TMI 216 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Meetings and proceedings – Explanatory statement to be annexed to notice, Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served, Certain perosns not to be appointed as managing director
-
1982 (6) TMI 215 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... shareholder of a company in the case of Charanjit Lal Chaudhari v. Union of India 1951 21 Comp. Cas. 33 (SC), and in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT 1955 25 Comp. Cas. 1 27 ITR 1 (SC), and the framing of the suit in the present case we are of the opinion that the present appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party and, as such, dismissal of its application to be joined as party by the learned trial judge was not irregular or invalid. The other contentions impeaching the validity of the settlement, assuming that the present appellant was entitled to intervene, have been discussed by us in the other appeal. More or less same contentions were urged before us. It is not necessary to discuss these in any detail. In the premises, we dismiss this appeal and uphold the finding and order of the learned trial judge on this aspect of the matter. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Suhas Chandra Sen, J. mdash I agree.
........
|
