|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 274 Records
-
1989 (1) TMI 367 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of a permissive nature and cannot be called property, however, widely the expression may be interpreted." We are of the opinion that the said reasoning applies equally to the interest of the assesses concerned herein. Here too the interest of the assessee is in the nature of a licence. He can only live there. He cannot dispose of the said interest nor can he deal with it in any manner to his benefit. It cannot also be said that he has a proprietary interest therein. 8. The learned standing counsel for the revenue brought to our notice a decision of the Bombay High Court in CWT v. Purshottam N. Amersey 1969 71 ITR 180 and certain English decision referred to therein, but we find that this decision was also considered by the Bench in the aforesaid decision and the said conclusion arrived at. We see no reason to take a different view now. 9. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 366 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case. On the orders direct- ing filing of complaints being held to be invalid the consequential complaints and the proceedings thereon including the orders of the Magistrate issuing summons cannot survive and it is in this view of the matter that by our order dated 18th August, 1988 we have quashed them. As regards the submission that it was not a fit case for interference either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution inasmuch as it was still open to the petitioners to prove their innocence before the Magistrate, suffice it to say that in the instant case if the petitioners are compelled to face prosecution in spite of the finding that the orders directing complaint to be filed against them were illegal it would obviously cause prejudice to them.. Points (v), (vi) and (vii) are decided accordingly. These, apart from those stated in our order dated 18th August, 1988 are our reasons for the said order.
-
1989 (1) TMI 365 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 1980 to 5.12.1981 on account of the operation of time bar. In view of this effect of the letter dated 11.12.1987 the lower authorities went wrong in apportioning the money contrary to' the stipulation made by the company. This amount could not be taken, as rightly observed by the learned Sr. Vice-President, as "any money owing to the persons from whom such sums may be recoverable or due which may be in his (the Central Excise Officer) or under his disposal or control." 152. Hence, I allow this appeal. A.No.E/2356/88-D I agree with the judgements passed by the learned Sr. Vice-President and allow the appeal. (P.C Jain) Technical Member FINAL ORDERS In view of the majority opinion, the following orders are finally passed in respect of each of the appeals. Appeal No. E/2353/88-D-The appeal is dismissed. Appeal No. E/2334/88-D-The appeal is dismissed. Appeal No. E/2355/88-D-The appeal is allowed. Appeal No. E/B336/88-D-The appeal is allowed in terms of para 73 (d).
-
1989 (1) TMI 364 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and both the applications Being MADCAP. No276 of 1988 and MADCAP. No. 272 of 1983 are remanded to the learned Tribunal for disposal according to law in the light of' the observations made in this judgment by following the procedure for trial of suits as laid down in the C. P.C. The parties to bear their own costs of both these appeals. 11. It appears from the remarks of the learned Tribunal which were called for by this Court that the procedure as laid down in O. 19 of the C. P.C. is followed at least by the Tribunals at Kutch when the claim does not exceed ₹ 1 lac even though it exceeds ₹ 25,000/-. Such procedure if followed by any tribunal is, on the face of it, faulty. In view of this, we direct that the copies of this Judgment may be immediately forwarded to all the Claims Tribunals in the State with spare Copies for Auxiliary Tribunals so that the Tribunals in the State may follow the correct procedure as laid down in this judgment. 12. Appeals allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n exercise of its powers upon Section 14. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. One other argument advanced before us was that even though the order of detention had been passed on April 5, 1988, no steps were taken to take the petitioner into custody till he surrendered himself in Court on July 4, 1988. This contention is on the face of it devoid of merit because it has been specifically stated in the counter affidavits that the petitioner was absconding and hence proclamations were made under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. and it was only thereafter the petitioner had surrendered himself in Court. It is not therefore a case where the petitioner was freely moving about but no arrest was effected because his being at large was not considered a hazard to the maintenance of public order. In the result we do not find any ground for quashing the order of detention passed against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 362 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing customer at the place of sale. These authorities cannot be availed of by the revenue, inasmuch as in the instant cases, the expenditure on freight was admittedly incurred by the allottees of the petitioners. Even if the freight is paid by the allottees to the coal agent, the same will not be included in the turnover of the coal agent, so long as it is not shown that the freight was charged in the bill demanding sale price in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Vinod Coal Syndicate. (supra) 8. For the reasons, both the sets of petitions are allowed, the notices issued under section 21 of the Act being Annexure 6 and the orders requiring the presence of the petitioners being annexure 8 to the writ petitions are quashed and the respondents are directed not to pursue the assessment proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to the notices (Annexure 6 to the writ petitions). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g legislative power to the State Government. The State Government could not impose any restriction on the export of groundnut seed or oil to outside State and further it could not issue directions for the compulsory levy at the specified price in view of the limitations placed on exercise of its powers under the Notification dated 9th June 1978. What it could not do directly could not be permitted to be done indirectly by virtue of clause 12 of the 1982 Order. The scope and ambit of clause 12(2) of the 1982 Order could not and did not authorise the State Government to impose the impugned restrictions. We are therefore of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the view taken by the High Court that the impugned restrictions placed by the State Government are ultra vires of its powers. The High Court has rightly struck down the directions issued by the State Government. We find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed
-
1989 (1) TMI 360 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before "date of publication of the notification" in sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act while making amend- ment by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. It is true that there were some changes giving the meaning of the date of the publication in Section 4(1) and (2) as well as Section 6(2) of the Act. But for that, there was no need for the use of the expression 'after the date'. If that be the position, then we must accept the interpretation put upon the amended clause by the High Court in the judgment under appeal. It will, however, be upon to the appellants to issue a fresh declaration under section 6, if so advised, within the period contemplated in the proviso to section 6(1) of the Act read with its first explanation. In that view of the matter the appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. In the view that we have taken, Civil Appeals Nos. 1843 and 1844 of 1986 are also dismissed without costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the taxable turnover should also include the printing and block-making charges or not?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The contract in this case is one, having regard to the nature of the job to be done and the confidence reposed, for work to be done for remuneration and supply of paper was just incidental. Hence, the entire price for the printed question papers would have been entitled to be excluded from the taxable turnover, but since in the instant case the demand notes prepared by the assessee showed the costs of paper separately, it appears that it has treated the supply of paper separately.
Except the materials supplied on the basis of such contract, the contract will continue to be a contract for work and labour and no liability to sales tax would arise in respect thereof. The High Court was, therefore, right in the view it took.
-
1989 (1) TMI 358 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nt that the assessee's case falls within cl. (B) of the Expln. 1 of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee's case could still be saved by the provisions contained in the Proviso to the said Clause. Further, after carefully going through the relevant portions of the commentaries of Kanga & Ralkhivala and Sampath Iyengar (referred to on behalf of the assessee), we are fully satisfied that this is not a fit case for imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since we are deciding the appeal on the appreciation of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case as well as our view on the relevant provisions of the Act, we do not deem it fit to discuss any of the reported cases/orders cited by the parties. Suffice it to say that these reported decisions/orders support their respective stand. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion sought to be raised in opposition to the award. Once it was found that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to find that there was delay in execution of the contract due to the conduct of the respondent, the respondent was liable for the consequences of the delay, namely, increase in prices. Therefore, the arbitrator had jurisdiction to go into this question. He has gone into that question and has awarded as he did. Claim I is not outside the purview of the contract. It arises as an incident of the contract and the arbitrator had jurisdiction. In that view of the matter the objections raised against the award, cannot be sustained. No other objection was urged before us. The award, therefore, must be made the rule of the Court and there will be a decree in terms of the award, and the respondent is directed to pay ₹ 17,500 as the arbitrator's remuneration and ₹ 10,000 as advocates' fees and costs. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (1) TMI 356 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... having to make any claim in refund the amount to the assess without his having to make any claim in that behalf. Sub-s. (1) of s. 244 of the Act further provides that where a refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in s. 240 and the ITO does not grant the refund within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is passed, the Central Government shall pay to the assessee simple interest on the amount of refund due at the specified rate. The liability to pay interest is therefore, on the amount job refund due. In instant case, the Tribunal has found that the amount of refund due was ₹ 40.033. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to allow interest on the entire amount of Rs., 40,033. 5. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue,. In the circumstances of the case, parities shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (1) TMI 355 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the interest has been awarded from the date of the institution of the proceedings?
Held that:- The award was made on 8th July, 1985 and it was published on 19th July, 1985, and, therefore, the latter date would be taken as the date of the award.
We would, however, delete the interest awarded by the arbitrator for the period from 22.8.1984 till the date of the award and confine the interest on the principal sum of ₹ 57,65,273 to interest at 9 per cent from 6.8.1981 till 21.8.1984 (which has been worked out at ₹ 29,82,443). However, in exercise of our powers under section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, we direct that the above principal sum or the unpaid part thereof should carry interest at the same rate from the date of the award (19.7.1985) till the date of actual payment.
-
1989 (1) TMI 354 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate Government itself by notifications of even No. dated 21st September, 1978 (annexure-V) exempted all the dealers from liability to pay tax on any sale of betel-nut made by them to any person. Shri Konwar has stated that grant of this exemption under section 3(3) of the Act may not influence us to answer the main point urged by the petitioner because the power under section 3(3) deals with exemption in respect of any tax payable under the Act which shows that according to the Government, tax was payable on betel nut, but due to representations made to it by the dealers as stated in paragraph II of the petition they were exempted from paying tax on this article. Though there is force in this contention of Shri Konwar, but as already stated we are not satisfied if the betel-nut can, in popular sense or in common parlance, be understood as dry or preserved fruit. 9.. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the rule is made absolute. W.A. SHISHAK, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 353 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. It was entered into with the Government for manufacture and supply of kiln-burnt bricks, which were manufactured by the earth excavated from the Government land. It was a contract of sale and not a works contract and the assessee was liable to sales tax. In that case, it was not only to manufacture of bricks but also to sell them to the Government, i.e., the delivery of bricks after manufacture, was a chattel for consideration. 9.. Accordingly the petition is allowed and it is declared that the petitioner firm is not exigible to payment of any tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and under the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976, and consequently, the notice issued on June 8, 1987 and the order passed on September 10, 1987, are quashed. Under the circumstances, parties are to bear their own costs. The outstanding security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 352 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the matter to the Assistant Collector, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has proceeded in the facts of this case on a correct basis and the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference
-
1989 (1) TMI 351 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f it had filed the original parts of the declarations in C form, as it had filed the original parts in Maharashtra the assessing authority wherein was also sought to be summoned by an application for their production, and further the duplicate parts thereof were filed before the assessing authority in Madhya Pradesh. (iii) The condition of filing a certificate from the customs authorities, in the Notification dated October 29, 1963 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was mandatory and not directory. (iv) In the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was not entitled to the exemption even if it had otherwise proved by placing a certificate from the purchaser, Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., that the goods were exported as a fact out of the territory of India. 14.. In the light of partial success of the references, we leave the parties to bear their costs of the two references as incurred.
-
1989 (1) TMI 350 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Schedule B. The highest Court in the land further spelt out the ratio in the following terms We agree that it is not necessary to be a domestic electrical appliance that it must be actually used in the home or the house. It must be of a kind which is generally used for household purposes. It appears to us that the types of items concerned in this appeal are generally used for household purposes and that is sufficiently good test for classification in the light of the explanation to tariff item No. 33C. Electro cardiograph (E.C.G.) can never be said to be generally used for domestic purposes. It is being used only in medical establishments and for medical purposes. It is certainly not of a kind, which is generally used for household purposes. We concur with the view of the Tribunal that the item can only fall within entry 41-A. In this view, we do not find any substance in this revision. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 349 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e. The ratio decidendi of this decision is that in an appropriate case pending disposal of an application for reference under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, this Court is competent to grant stay of realisation of tax in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Now it is to be found out whether the case in hand is an appropriate one and there are strong prima facie materials for which stay of realisation of tax is warranted. We find from the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal in second appeal that the case was disposed of on facts. Hardly there were questions of law. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner for grant of stay. 3.. We, therefore, decline to grant stay for realisation of tax and accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. Miscellaneous Case No. 2765 of 1988. In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, the miscellaneous case is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 348 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le turnover for the assessment year in question. We agree with the Tribunal that the principle enunciated by the Deputy Commissioner was the correct one. Having regard to entry 6 in the Second Schedule to the Act relating to mica, taxing of closing stock in that assessment year is based on no principle but as pointed out by the Tribunal, having regard to the practice that was being followed by the department, the change in the principle would result in double taxation which would not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has also pointed out that since the assessments for the subsequent years have become final and since they were not revised by the Deputy Commissioner, the principle enunciated by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be given effect to uniformly. We do not think any interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
........
|
