|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 226 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntention has been put forward before me now, necessitating a reconsideration of the above judgment. A post-dated cheque is drawn, not on the date the cheque bears, but on the date the drawer signs the cheque complete in its form. The complaint in the instant case shows that the cheque was signed by the petitioner complete in its form on January 13, 1989, and had also been handed over to the respondent on the same day. The cheque, therefore, though post-dated to April 18, 1989, was drawn on January 13, 1989. It has been presented, whatever the reason for the for the late presentation be, only on September 9, 1989, that is beyond the statutory period of six months required by clause (a) of the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even on a reading of the complaint, there is non-compliance with clause (a) of the proviso and as such offence under section 138 of the Act is not made out. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... revious default. 8. The Calcutta High Court in Asst. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal v. Mati Begum Safaran Khatoon and another, (1979 Tax L.R. 2094), held following the enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 S.C. 186, that to the charge under S. 210(1), of failure to lay before the annual general meeting of the company the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account, it was no defence to say that a meeting was not called, when it could have been called. The provisions of S. 210(1) cannot be defeated simply by not calling the meeting willfully. The provisions of S. 210(5) are thus attracted even in a case where no general meeting was held. The complaint refers to Ss. 210(1) and (5), while detailing the facts which, the view of the complainant, indicated the commission of alleged offence, by the petitioners. The first contention also in view of the aforestated reasoning, and the pending law laid down, has to fail. 9. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 224 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... entral Board of Excise & Customs took a view that is in accordance with the views of the Sr.V.P's and my own (present) orders. 46. For these reasons, I agree with the order proposed by the Sr. V.P. and I hold that the un-exposed cinematograph film in jumbo rolls imported by the appellants was correctly classifiable under Item 37(I) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs. 47. The point of difference is answered accordingly. The file is now sent back to the Bench for further orders. Final Order 48. In the light of the majority opinion, we hold that the imported cinematograph films, unexposed, in jumbo rolls correctly fell under Item No. 37 (I) of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs. In this, view of the matter, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 223 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... object of it, is only to ensure that the tenant without the consent in writing of the landlord does not sub-let whole or any part of the premises or assign or transfer his interest in the premises. When the lease deed itself gives liberty to the tenant to licence or sub-let the premises without any consent of the landlord, the case cannot be held to fall within the mischief of S. 23 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that even if it is held that the act of the Central Government in transferring Esso to the Esso Standard Refinery Co., is held to amount to sub-letting, transferring or assigning the leasehold right, such an assignment or sub-letting is permitted by the lease deed itself. Therefore, we hold that the case does not fall within the mischief of S. 23 of the Act. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. 20. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. 21. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 222 - CEGAT- CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... e goods were imported into India in accordance with law and if M/s. Clarion TV (P) Ltd. was ready to clear the same by paying the amount they would have been allowed to do so. Hence there is no import of the subject goods contrary to any prohibitions imposed under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force and on that account the confiscation of goods was not in accordance with law. 9. The appellants have placed materials to show that they have purchased these goods from Compo Exports and there were no other rival claimants. Hence, the appellants’ ownership is proved. In such circumstances, we hold that the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(i) is bad in law and the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. It is hereby ordered that the authorities shall note the Bill of Entry filed by the appellants in their favour and allow clearance of the subject goods, after observing the necessary and legal formalities in this behalf.
-
1990 (6) TMI 221 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... glect or misfeasance or breach of duty on her part in relation to the affairs of the company. After elaborately considering the various aspects of this contention both the recovery officer as also the CIT have found that the petitioner has not been successful in establishing the above contention. The findings are based on materials and, therefore, they cannot be said to be perverse. There is therefore, little scope to interfere with the said findings. It is relevant in this context to note that the finding of the recovery officer (see Ext. P13) that the petitioner inasmuch as the company is a private company and she being a director of the said company, is jointly and severally liable, has not even been challenged by the petitioner before the CIT (vide Ext. P14 revision petition). Exts. P13 and P15 therefore, are beyond challenge. 14. The O.P. for the reasons stated above, is liable to be dismissed, Accordingly the same is dismissed, In he circumstances no order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 220 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the finding of the Tribunal we are of the view that this case comes within cl. (b) of the Circular No. 487, dt. 8th June, 1987, and as such the deduction under s. 194 could not be made for payments of the Munshis as the same could not be included. In view of the finding of the Tribunal in this regard binding upon this Court and in view of such finding of the Tribunal, were are of the view that the payments to Munshis could not include the payments to such workers and as such there is no obligation for deduction under s. 194C of the IT Act. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the role of the Munshis or the Sardars could not be said to be the function of the Contractor and as such the penalty under s. 221 read with s. 201(1A) of the IT Act does not and cannot arise at all. 6. Accordingly all these three questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. I agree.
-
1990 (6) TMI 219 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r (exporter) to the foreign buyer. The sale or purchase which preceded such export (the penultimate purchase) which comes within section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is the purchase made by the Bombay exporter who purchases goods from the revision-petitioner and effects exports. What is taxed in this case is the purchases made by the petitioner in this State. Such purchase is not the preceding purchase occasioning the export but purchase removed by one more step. So, the purchase made by the petitioner within the State is not just the immediate transaction before the export sale. Such a purchase made by the petitioner will not come under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly held so relying on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bismillah and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1989 73 STC 135. The said decision has our concurrence. 2.. There is no merit in this tax revision case. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 218 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ). We see no reason to take a different view now. Since the order of the Additional Commissioner was founded on this ground alone it can hardly be supported. We agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is not sustainable in law although on grounds entirely different from that taken in the application itself. Since however the points taken by Mr. Bhattacharjee is a point of law, he was permitted to take it. 5.. Upon a consideration of the facts and the law on the subject we find that the impugned order dated February 15, 1984, is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The application therefore succeeds. The Assistant Commissioner before whom the application for renewal of the eligibility certificate are pending should now be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. The case is, thus, disposed of. There shall be no order for costs. Application allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 217 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 982-83 and the exemption claimed on that basis. We see no force in this plea. This plea was not put forward before the Appellate Tribunal. Be that as it may, it is a matter of evidence that goods were sent during the year 1981-82 and pattials were received only in the year 1982-83. No evidence on this score is seen to have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The declarations filed before the authorities showed that the turnover of Rs. 94,846.72 related to the assessment year 1981-82. If that be so, exemption cannot be claimed for the year 1982-83. The assessee was claiming an exemption. The burden of proof is on the assessee to plead and prove the same. As admittedly the declarations themselves showed that the turnover related to the assessment year 1981-82, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the relief. There is no error of law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated March 27, 1989. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 216 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The mere fact that in the proceedings of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, dated January 4, 1985, it is mentioned that the assessee is also entitled to exemption on other printed items is of no consequence or relevance in considering as to whether the assessee is entitled to the exemption provided by S.R.O. No. 968/80. We are of the view, that the exemption provided by S.R.O. No. 968/80 is not and cannot be made available to the revision petitioner-assessee, since the registration certificate granted to the revision-petitioner (assessee) does not cover production of these items-plain envelopes, craft envelopes and calico mounted colour papers. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, as also the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in negativing the plea of exemption for the said three items which are not covered by the certificate of registration. 4.. There is no merit in this revision. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te of. That, in our opinion, is not in any way contrary to the intention of the proviso to section 2 of the Act. The inclusion of turnover relating to declared goods in the taxable turnover under section 2 was only for the purpose of fixing rate of tax and levying additional tax on the taxable turnover of general goods. There is nothing to suggest in the proviso to section 2 that the turnover relating to sales of declared goods shall not be included for the purpose of finding out the taxable turnover under section 2 to fix the rate of tax. The only condition that can be spelt out from the proviso to section 2 is, thus no additional tax can be levied on the turnover of declared goods to exceed the rate fixed for them. As pointed out already, that has not been done in these two cases. 9.. In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the common order of the Tribunal and consequently the tax cases are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 214 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... uit that has undergone full or partial dehydration or any other preserving process, including almond, khasta badam, pistachio nut, chilgoza or neoza, apricot, alubukhra, cashewnut, walnut, fig, raisin (locally known as kismis or monacca) and date (locally known as khajur, zahedi or sohera) but excluding any fruit which is oil-seed, as defined in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956). 6.. The notification specifically mentions zahedi khajur as included within the category of dry or preserved fruit. The vires of the notification has not been challenged before us. It corroborates the conclusion already arrived at by us that zahedi khajur is a dry or preserved fruit and not a fresh fruit. 7.. The question referred for opinion is accordingly answered in the negative. 8.. The reference is thus disposed of. 9.. There will be no order for costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1990 (6) TMI 213 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is mandatory in nature. Mr. A.K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon some decisions of the Supreme Court where principle of equity was made applicable in considering taxing statutes. Since the decisions are in a different context and are not in respect of deductions similar to as envisaged under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii), there is no scope of attracting equity to such a case. If the prescribed declaration form would have been in triplicate, any one of the parts of such form would have satisfied the requirements of rule 27(2). In the present case, there is no such form. Accordingly, there is no scope for a dealer to prove the sale to a purchasing dealer by obtaining other evidence in support of declaration for getting the deduction. 5.. In the result, refusal to state a case on the question proposed by the petitioner is justified and accordingly, application under section 24(2)(b) of the Act is dismissed. No costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 212 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of this legislative power. The mere fact that some of the dealers may enjoy fortuitous relief or advantage, cannot make sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of section 6D(1) either arbitrary or discriminatory. We record that Mr. Bose clearly submitted that he was not challenging the vires of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b). 15.. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of section 6D(1) of the 1941 Act suffers in any way from the vice of arbitrariness or discrimination. We, therefore, hold that section 6D(1)(b)(i) of the 1941 Act is valid and constitutional being intra vires article 14. In view of this finding, the notice for assessment for the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1985, issued by the respondents to the applicant was valid and lawful. That being so, the application is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. The case is thus disposed of. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 211 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the facts discernible from the files, it can be inferred without fear of contradiction that the assessing authority could not have made a best judgment assessment. It is relevant in this context to note that it is not the case of the assessing authority that the trading account does not disclose the true state of affairs. As a matter of fact the assessing authority as also the revisional authority have relied on the trading account to hold that the return submitted is untrue. The assessing authority ought to have accepted the explanations and dropped the proceedings under section 45A of the Act to levy the penalty. The levy under the circumstances cannot be sustained. Exhibits P2 and P4, therefore, are quashed. The penalty already recovered in the circumstances, shall be refunded to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 210 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the circumstances, we consider that the notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer for assessment of tax in respect of the applicant were valid and that the Commercial Tax Officer was competent to assess such tax. In making the assessment the appropriate authority, however, shall take into consideration the provisions of section 26A(2) of the Act. The applicant may claim exemption under the section for supplies made before 1st October, 1983, provided tax has not been collected on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected at that time. It is clear that the case falls within clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 26A of the Act subject to the applicant discharging the onus in terms of the proviso to that section. 34.. In the premises, the application is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Interim orders are vacated. There will be no order for costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 209 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sential features to be considered while considering the stay application, he did not record positive findings thereon. Interest of justice would be best served if the matter is heard afresh by the Commissioner. The petitioner is permitted to file additional applications elaborating the grounds of challenge and the germane factors. If the petitioner makes such an application by June 22, 1990, the Commissioner shall rehear the matter and dispose of the same by July 9, 1990. As an interim measure, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 by the end of June, 1990. The order of attachment which is stated to have been issued, will remain inoperative till disposal of the matter by the Commissioner afresh. Needless to say that the order of the Commissioner as contained in annexure 3 is inoperative, because he has been asked to reconsider the matter. The writ applications and the miscellaneous cases arising therefrom are disposed of. Writ applications disposed of.
-
1990 (6) TMI 208 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... authorised to levy by way of penalty an amount not exceeding twice the amount evaded or sought to be evaded. In this case the penalty imposed by exhibit P8 for evading the security deposit of Rs. 5,527.14 is Rs. 11,054. It is authorised and exigible under section 45A(1) of the Act. In perspective exhibits P8, P11 and P14 are not open to any objection. They are valid and legal. 6.. It is true that the maximum penalty has been imposed by the assessing authority in exercising its powers under section 45A(1) of the Act. The contumacious conduct of the assessee is self-evident. That has been adverted to by the assessing authority and also by the revisional authorities. Regard being had to the contumacious conduct of the assessee, we are satisfied that the maximum amount of penalty levied is justified and rational. No interference is called for with the quantum of penalty levied in this case. The writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 207 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act. In this view, the Board of Revenue was in error in holding that penalty is exigible for all the three years. Counsel for the Revenue was not able to point out that there was any independent investigation, either by the assessing authority or by the Board of Revenue, to show that apart from a certificate which came into existence long after the returns were filed, there was independent material to show that the exemption claimed by the assessee in the returns was not bona fide and was unfounded, so as to say that the returns filed were incorrect or untrue. Such a case was not put forward nor was it found. 5.. In these circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated February 26, 1990, for the three years (1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86) and restore the order passed in revisions by the Deputy Commissioner. The appeals are allowed. Appellant succeeds on point No. (1) formulated in para 2 supra. The other points are left open. Appeals allowed.
........
|
