|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 213 Records
-
1982 (7) TMI 272 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the following orders and directions (a) I quash the impugned orders - (Annexure-D in Writ Petition No. 20488 of 1982 and Annexure-B in W.P. number 20743 of 1982); (b) I declare that the nomination papers of the petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 20488 and 20743 of 1982 to the Central and Regional Councils respectively are valid and direct respondent number 1 to include them as valid nomination papers to the Central and Regional Councils respectively and complete the elections on the basis of the calendar of events already Issued (Annexure-R2) in accordance with the Act and the Regulations. 43. Rule issued is made absolute in both the cases But, in the circumstances of the cases, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. 44. Let copies of this order be communicated to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and its Secretary forthwith. Let a free copy of this order be also furnished simultaneously to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 45. Rule made absolute.
-
1982 (7) TMI 271 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e section 197 Cr. P.C. can apply the accused Chairman must have committed the offence while acting or puporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Dealing with this aspect my learned brother has observed "It must be noted that the offence is committed by the body corporate and not by the Chairman. He is being prosecuted by virtue of section 32 of the Act which makes him too a person liable for an offence under the Act," and again "More important is the other aspect that the Chairman is not being prosecuted because he has committed the offence. The offence has been committed by the Bank but the Chairman is being prosecuted because the Board of Directors is responsible for the management and control of the Bank." (45) As this finding is sufficient to repel the petitioner's plea raised on the basis of absence of sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C., I, need not discuss the other aspects which are so elaborately dealt with by my learned brother.
-
1982 (7) TMI 270 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ur opinion the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (S. D.), Baroda. No interference is called for. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 14. It appears to us that the last three items were within limitation and the plain-tiff might have succeeded in regard to those items if they would have produced all the documents which they bad. This we say only with a rider because they could have only succeeded in regard to those three items if all the documents that they produced were genuine and true. It may be that they might have produced all documents and yet they might have failed because the documents may not be genuine and, therefore, perhaps they did not produce them. It may be that they wanted to avoid some liability as suggested by the defendants. But looking to the relationship between the parties which existed for number of years, by which both the parties might have been profited we do not propose to pass any order in regard to costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 269 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ;K') the petitioners should he given reasonable opportunity of being heard. 32. We are therefore unable to uphold the order of the learned trial Judge selling aside the order dated July 17, 1979 though we agree with the learned Judge that the communication dated August 21, 1978 is not valid and legal. The said order however aeed not be set aside as we have already held that the same is no more valid order in view of the subsequent order dated July 17, 1979 (Annexure 'K'). For the foregoing discussions, while we dismiss Appeal No. F. M. A. T. 3127 of 1981, we allow Appeal No. F. M. A. T. 1033 of 1982. There will however be no order for costs in any of the appeals. 33. As prayed for by Dr. Pal, we direct that the police investigation which has been started will continue but no report in final form should be filed by the investigating agency without the leave of this Court. This order will remain effective for a period of four weeks from date. M.M. Dutt, J. I agree.
-
1982 (7) TMI 268 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... question as to demurrage could be agitated after the Andhra Suit will be disposed of, subject however to the plea of res judicata or constructive res judicata that might arise at such stage of the proceeding. If the Calcutta Sail is stayed I do not think how the plain-tiff herein would be prejudiced if it would ask for leave to amend its written statement in the Andhra Suit to incorporate the said further question or claim. 12. In that view of the matter we do not think that the learned Judge rightly considered the matter when he held that these questions were separate from and independent of the question whether the property in the goods had in fact passed on to the respondent. 13. The result therefore is that the appeal must be and is hereby allowed. The order of the Court below is set aside and there will be an order staying the trial of the Calcutta Suit. The appellant would be entitled to the costs of the application of the Court below and also the costs of this appeal.
-
1982 (7) TMI 267 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e therein. Following this decision, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bowen Press v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 39 STC 367 held that normally it would not be open to the assessing authority to refuse the benefit of the inclusion of an article in the recognition certificate in the matter of exemption or concession in the rate of tax where it could not be in dispute that the selling dealer had made the sale to a purchaser who had produced a genuine recognition certificate mentioning that article in it. 6. The Tribunal has noticed this decision of the Bombay High Court and another decision of the Madras High Court in Eltex Engineering Corporation (P) Ltd. v. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Avanashi Road Division, Coimbatore, (1972) 30 STC 146 (Madras) which has taken the same view. The Tribunal cannot, therefore, be held to have committed any error of law in the view taken by it. 7. The revision fails and is dismissed but parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 266 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is one point, however, which, in our opinion, requires consideration by the trial court. In some of the suits it has been pleaded by the appellants that they were entitled to a set-off by reason of certain credits in their favour. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has held that the trial court was justified in declining to enter into those claims. We think that in this regard the courts below have erred. It was necessary to do complete justice between the parties having regard to the peculiar circumstances of these cases, and we are of opinion that so far as these claims are concerned the trial court should now examine them on their merits. o p /o p In the result, the appeals are dismissed subject to the direction that the trial court will take up the suits again solely for the purpose of examining the validity of the claims to set-off made by the appellants in those suits. We make no orders as to costs of these appeals. o p /o p P.B.R. Appeals dismissed. o p /o p
-
1982 (7) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t under s. 6of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as a matter of propriety, necessarily act in his own discretion and not on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The question then is whether we should permit the State of Maharashtra to resile from the concession made before the High Court and raise before us the contention now advanced by the learned Attorney General. We have not the slightest doubt that the cause of justice would in no way be advanced by permitting the State of Maharashtra to now resile from the concession and agitate the question posed by the learned Attorney General. On the other hand we are satisfied that the concession was made to advance the cause of justice as it was rightly thought that in deciding to sanction or not to sanction the prosecution of a Chief Minister, the Governor would act in the exercise of his discretion and not with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The application for grant of special leave is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1982 (7) TMI 264 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Reserve Bank of India and an adverse inference is required to be drawn from such failure even otherwise in respect of such stale matter. In my opinion, the department is not entitled to take up old matters in this manner. If the department’s contentions as to limitation were to be accepted, it would mean that the department can commence adjudication proceedings 10 years, 15 years or 20 years after the original show cause notice which cannot be permitted. The position might have been different if there had been any default on the part of the petitioner or any act of omission or commission on his part which had resulted in this long period of delay. Then in such case, the petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. This is not the department’s case in the present matter. 8. In the result, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The respondents to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioner on the usual scale.
-
1982 (7) TMI 263 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... iod not covered by B. 13 bond the orders of the Collector are set aside. In respect of clearances covered by B.13 bond, appropriate proceedings should be drawn up in terms of that bond and suitable orders passed. 7. So far as the penalty is concerned, the Board does not find rule 173Q to be attracted in the facts of the case. It is not disputed that the appellants had filed their price list and it was open to the Department to take appropriate action for correcting the price list in case the price list was not acceptable. As a matter of fact it appears that once the price list was finally approved by the Asstt. Collector. Such approval on the basis of wrong facts does not prevent the Department from recovering the correct amount of duty subject to such time-limit as are prescribed under the law but then it cannot further be argued that there have been any attempt at clearance without payment of duty. The orders of penalty are also accordingly set aside, being untenable.
-
1982 (7) TMI 262 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... nufactured? The answer would be in negative. Similar y in the case of refrigerator compressor, if it is burnt out it would not be said that the refrigerator has been manufactured afresh; if this compressor was to be repaired in the factory of a manufacturer. In the instance cited above, only the new components (if excisable) would be duty paid while being fixed at the time of repair. 8. Government are of the view that in commercial parlance, repair was clearly distinguishable from manufacture and under the Central Excise Law, only manufacture attracted duty. Government further consider that in the present case the process of repair done could not be equated with process(s) of manufacture. 9. In view of the above, Government hold that no duty was leviable on these repairs so long as the new components and the fresh material used (if excisable) in the process of repair duly discharged the respective burden of duty. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1982 (7) TMI 261 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ing 39.07 articles of rectangular shapes as follows. “Article of Rectangular shape Rectangular articles are classified as follows Rectangular plate, sheets, strips, film whether or not surface worked “ 15. Thus the Government observe that there is substantial force in the appellate Collector’s findings that the expression “articles of plastic materials- of other rectangular” shapes will take in its ambit plastic films whether laminated or not and whether rigid or flexible. Otherwise the existence of the term like “rigid”, “flexible” “laminated” etc. occurring therein cannot be justified. 16. The Government thus hold that the goods were correctly classifiable under item 82(3)(b) I.C.T. and for the same reason they would also not be exempted by virtue of exemption notification No. 28-Cus., dated 1 -3-74. 17. In this view of the matter, the Revision Application fails and it is rejected accordingly.
-
1982 (7) TMI 260 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in filing the appeal and consequently rejecting the appeal on the ground that it is belated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is an order under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and as section 36 provides for an appeal against any order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal, an appeal will lie against such order to the Tribunal under that section. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal appears to be right. The case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1982 (7) TMI 259 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ances of the case positively indicate only a loan arrangement. The terms of the arrangement are consistent with a loan arrangement as held by the Supreme Court in the decision adverted to. 5.. The learned counsel for the State referred to clause 6 of the agreement, exhibit B 1, in support of his case that the plaintiff had undertaken to pay sales tax and therefore he could not now contend that he is not liable to pay tax. A reading of the clause would show that there is no specific undertaking to pay sales tax but the obligation is to pay such taxes as are levied or leviable. If in law the plaintiff was not liable to pay tax that could not be imposed by reason of an arrangement reached under exhibit P 1. The clause does not create a liability which does not independently exist. Therefore that clause is also of no avail to the defendant, the State. In the circumstances we are in agreement with the Court below that the suit is to be decreed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... though proceedings for each assessment year are separate only one notice was given in respect of the assessment years 1973-74 to 1977-78, and hence the notice is bad. We do not find any merit in this contention. It could not be shown as to which provision of the Act has been flouted by the action of respondent No. 1 in giving only one notice for several years. The facts and circumstances relating to these years being common, we do not think that the giving of one notice in respect thereof for initiating penalty proceedings suffered from any legal infirmity. In the result, therefore, these petitions are allowed in part, inasmuch as the impugned notices issued under section 15-A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 only are quashed and as for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 the initiation of proceedings being valid the petitions are dismissed. In view of the divided success parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 257 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee s sale is a subsequent sale and there has been a first sale in respect of the same goods earlier in the State, then it is for the authorities to proceed to levy that transaction of first sale, and the onus cannot be thrown on the assessee to show that the first sale has suffered tax. The onus on the subsequent seller is only to point out that there has been a first sale and the onus is not on him to show that the first sale has, in fact, suffered tax. This is the view this court has taken in two earlier decisions reported in Govindan and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1975 35 STC 50 and Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd. 1977 40 STC 463. Thus, the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader in this case that the onus is on the assessee to show that the first sale has suffered tax cannot legally be sustained. Therefore, no interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal in this case. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1982 (7) TMI 256 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sential difference between pineapple fruit and the canned pineapple slices, and that though sliced pineapple was a presentation of fruit in a more convenient form, the pineapple slices must be held to possess the same identity as the original pineapple fruit. The Supreme Court held that although a degree of processing is involved in preparing pineapple slices from the original fruits, the commodity continues to possess its original identity, notwithstanding the removal of inedible portions. In view of this decision, it must be held that even after removal of seeds from tamarind, the Board was justified in holding that the goods possessed the same identity and that there was no change in the identity or form of the goods at the time of their sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. 4.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, against the department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is an appeal provided under section 31. It is no doubt true, as pointed out in the counter-affidavit, that as against the original assessment an appeal will lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31. Having regard to the fact that the appellant instead of filing an appeal took the alternative remedy by way of a petition under section 14 for reassessment the rejection of his request for reassessment can be a subject-matter of appeal under section 31, for section 31 specifically refers to an order passed under section 14. Since the refusal to reassess can only be an order made under section 14, an appeal will definitely lie under section 31. In this view of the matter, we allow the writ appeal as well as the writ petition and quash the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Pollachi, dated 15th May, 1980, with direction to him to entertain the appellant s appeal under section 31 and dispose of the same on merits. No costs.
-
1982 (7) TMI 254 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nly appears to be based on extremely invalid reasoning as well. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 19th August, 1975 (annexure 2 to the writ petition), in so far as it enhances the levy of sales tax on pumping sets from 3 per cent to 6 per cent, as also the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner (judicial), Sales Tax, Jhansi, dated 20th November, 1976 (annexure 3 to the writ petition), in so far as it purports to dismiss the petitioners appeal concerning determination of tax on the turnover of pumping sets during the assessment year 1970-71 are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,206.32 representing enhancement of tax, made by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of the petitioners turnover of pumping sets for the assessment year 1970-71 in proceedings initiated under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1982 (7) TMI 253 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r-affidavit. There was also the testimony on oath given by an officer of the company which represented the parent company in the assessment proceedings to the effect that this question was gone into by the Income-tax Officers at the time of the original assessments for all the years. This testimony remained unrebutted. It was in those circumstances it was held that since the facts were already within the knowledge of the concerned Income-tax Officers there was no non-disclosure. This case must be confined to the particular facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be treated as an authority for the proposition that a disclosure of the transaction in whatever form under an enactment is a proper and full disclosure for the purpose of another enactment as well, merely because the assessing authority happens to be the same. For the above reasons the tax revision case fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
........
|
