|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 175 Records
-
1982 (1) TMI 175
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of glass syringes as "glassware" or "hospital equipment."
2. Competency and maintainability of the rectification application.
3. Doctrine of merger and its applicability.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court and Tribunal under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Glass Syringes:
The primary issue was whether glass syringes were taxable as "glassware" at 7% or as "hospital equipment" at 4%. Initially, the dealer's turnover was taxed as unclassified goods. The Additional Judge (Revisions) upheld this. However, a Division Bench of the High Court, in a previous case (Sales Tax Reference No. 101 of 1972), held that glass syringes were taxable as glassware at 7%. Following this, the High Court in the dealer's case also held that syringes were taxable as glassware. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed this view in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, holding that glass syringes were taxable as "hospital equipment" at 4% up to 30th November 1973.
2. Competency and Maintainability of the Rectification Application:
The dealer applied for rectification under Section 22 of the Act to reduce the tax rate from 7% to 4%, based on the Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal rejected this application, stating that the dealer should have approached the High Court since the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions) had merged with the High Court's order. The Tribunal viewed the rectification application as incompetent and not maintainable.
3. Doctrine of Merger and Its Applicability:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the doctrine of merger, asserting that the High Court's order dated 19th October 1979 had absorbed the Additional Judge (Revisions)'s order dated 7th December 1978. However, the High Court clarified that its jurisdiction under Section 11 is to decide questions of law, and the effective order disposing of the case is the one passed by the Tribunal. The High Court does not dispose of the case but revises the Tribunal's order by deciding the questions of law. Therefore, the earlier order of the revising authority did not merge with the High Court's order.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court and Tribunal:
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 11 is to decide questions of law, while the Tribunal has the authority to pass the final order disposing of the case. The Tribunal's view that the rectification application was incompetent was erroneous. The High Court cited precedents, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Modi Industries Ltd. and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jamuna Prasad Guy Prasad, to emphasize that the revising authority's order did not merge with the High Court's order. The High Court also referred to the amendments made by U.P. Acts Nos. 11 of 1978 and 12 of 1979, which streamlined the process for dealers or the Commissioner to approach the High Court directly for legal questions.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's view on the competency of the rectification application was incorrect. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the dealer's application on its merits. The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with the law. The dealer was awarded costs of Rs. 300.
Judgment:
The petition was allowed, and the Tribunal was instructed to hear and decide the matter afresh on its merits.
-
1982 (1) TMI 174
Issues:
Assessment of sales tax on hotel and restaurant owners for serving eatables and drinks - Whether transactions constitute sales under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court addressed six writ petitions filed by hotel and restaurant owners challenging notices for sales tax assessment. The petitioners argued that serving eatables and drinks to customers did not amount to sales, hence they should not be liable for sales tax. On the contrary, the department contended that whether the transactions constituted sales depended on the facts of each case as per section 2(o) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in State of H.P. v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. and Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi. In the former case, the Supreme Court held that supplying meals to resident guests in hotels did not amount to sale as it was part of the service provided. The latter case extended this principle to service of food to customers in restaurants, emphasizing that if the transaction's essence was service rather than sale of food, it would not be taxable.
A review petition in the Northern India Caterers' case clarified that if the dominant intention in a transaction was the sale of food, it would be subject to sales tax. The Court reiterated that in cases of sales made across the counter or outside the establishment, the transactions could be considered sales. However, if the service charge was separate from the cost of food, indicating distinct charges for service and food, it could be treated as a sale.
The Court concluded that the assessing authority must determine whether the dominant intention in each transaction was the sale of food or drinks. As the facts were yet to be ascertained through an inquiry, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the assessing authority should decide based on the facts and the Supreme Court's decisions.
In summary, the judgment highlighted the need for a factual inquiry to ascertain the dominant intention in transactions involving the supply of food and drinks by hotel and restaurant owners to determine whether they constituted sales subject to taxation.
-
1982 (1) TMI 173
Issues:
1. Whether certain wool commodities are exempt from Central sales tax.
2. Whether the High Court should interfere in taxation matters when appeals are pending.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that wool commodities like wool top, wool burrs, etc., should be considered as one commodity and exempt from Central sales tax as they are not separate from raw wool. The revenue argued that these objections should be raised before the appellate authority instead of through a writ petition. The revenue cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that the High Court should not interfere in tax matters when appeals are pending. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions stating that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court found that the cited cases were not applicable to the present situation. The Court noted that the assessing authority had already passed an assessment order, and an appeal was pending before the appellate authority. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should pursue the alternative remedy of appeal, and the appellate authority should expedite the appeal process.
2. The Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the substantial tax amount that would have to be paid before the appeal's disposal, potentially impacting the petitioner's business. The revenue's counsel assured the Court that a stay application for the tax amount could be reasonably considered by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Court emphasized the need for the appellate authority to promptly dispose of the appeals, ideally within three months. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should continue with the appeal process and refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner should pursue the appeal process rather than seeking intervention through a writ petition, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellate authority to address the raised issues promptly. The Court highlighted the need for the appellate authority to consider relevant circumstances, such as the potential impact on the petitioner's business, when dealing with the appeal.
-
1982 (1) TMI 172
Issues Involved:
1. Implied agreement to deliver goods at the destination of purchasing dealers.
2. Inclusion of packing charges in the turnover of sale price under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
3. Inclusion of various charges in the sale price under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
4. Inclusion of packing charges in the turnover of sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
5. Inclusion of various charges in the sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
6. Breach of declarations in form 19.
7. Classification of timber as consumable stores for manufacturing purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Implied Agreement to Deliver Goods at the Destination:
The Tribunal found that the delivery of goods was ex-destination, meaning the property in the goods did not pass to the purchasers until the goods were delivered at their destination. This was based on the fact that the goods were fragile and required special handling, which was provided by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that there was an implied agreement to deliver the goods at the destination, and the purchasers would not have accepted the goods if the delivery was ex-factory.
2. Inclusion of Packing Charges in the Turnover of Sale Price under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969:
The Tribunal held that packing charges recovered under the white bills were part of the turnover of the sale price. The Tribunal found that these charges were incurred before the goods were ready for delivery ex-factory, indicating that they formed part of the sale price.
3. Inclusion of Various Charges in the Sale Price under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969:
The Tribunal held that charges for handling, loading, unloading, delivery at the destination, iron strapping, binding, and lafa charges shown in the yellow bills were part of the sale price. The Tribunal found that these charges were incurred to ensure safe delivery of the goods to the destination, which was an obligation under the contract.
4. Inclusion of Packing Charges in the Turnover of Sale Price under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The Tribunal held that packing charges charged in the white bills were part of the turnover of the sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Tribunal found that these charges were incurred before the goods were ready for delivery ex-factory, indicating that they formed part of the sale price.
5. Inclusion of Various Charges in the Sale Price under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
The Tribunal held that charges for packing, handling, iron strapping, binding, and lafa charges charged in the yellow bills formed part of the sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Tribunal found that these charges were incurred to ensure safe delivery of the goods to the destination, which was an obligation under the contract.
6. Breach of Declarations in Form 19:
This issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee during the hearing, and therefore, it was not required to be answered.
7. Classification of Timber as Consumable Stores for Manufacturing Purposes:
The Tribunal initially held that the purchase of timber for making crates was not permissible under form 19 declarations and subjected it to purchase tax. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on its earlier decision in Vasuki Carborundum Works, which was later held to be erroneous by the High Court. The High Court concluded that packing materials could be considered consumable stores, and therefore, the purchase of timber should not be subjected to purchase tax.
Conclusion:
- Question No. 1: The property in the respective contracts of sale of glass between the assessee-company and the respective purchasers passed to the purchasers at the destination.
- Questions Nos. 2 to 5: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.
- Question No. 6: Not pressed.
- Question No. 7: Answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.
The reference was answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 171
The petitioner challenged notices under U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that specifying assessment year in notice is mandatory. Notices were quashed. Petition allowed.
-
1982 (1) TMI 170
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the mixture of sopari, variyali, dhana-dal, sweet flavoured powder, etc., sold as pan-masala amounts to "manufacture" under section 2(16) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
2. Whether the sales of pan-masala containing sopari, chuna, and tobacco qualify as sales of "tobacco" under item No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and entry 43 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, thereby being exempt from all taxes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the mixture of sopari, variyali, dhana-dal, sweet flavoured powder, etc., sold as pan-masala amounts to "manufacture" under section 2(16) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969:
The Tribunal found that the constituent ingredients in both varieties of Pan-masala retain their original characteristics and form. The blending of different articles or the treatment of tobacco by applying chuna does not materially alter the original form and characteristics of the constituent articles. Therefore, the activity does not amount to "manufacture" under section 2(16) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the goods were sold in the same form in which they were purchased, which qualifies them for deduction under section 7 of the Gujarat Act as "resales."
The court examined the definitions of "resale" and "manufacture" under sections 2(26) and 2(16) of the Gujarat Act, respectively. It was emphasized that for an activity to be classified as "manufacture," there must be a transformation resulting in a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers, which stated that mere processing or treatment that does not result in a new and distinct article does not constitute manufacture.
The court concluded that the mere mixture and addition of flavor in the first variety of pan-masala or the treatment of tobacco with chuna in the second variety do not amount to "manufacture" as the original constituent articles retain their substantial identity. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the turnover of sales of pan-masala as resales under section 7 of the Gujarat Act.
2. Whether the sales of pan-masala containing sopari, chuna, and tobacco qualify as sales of "tobacco" under item No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and entry 43 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, thereby being exempt from all taxes:
The Tribunal found that the second variety of pan-masala, which is a mixture of tobacco, sopari, and chuna, retains the form of tobacco. The purpose for which customers purchase this pan-masala is to consume tobacco in that form, treated with chuna and accompanied by sopari. The form of tobacco in the pan-masala does not change despite the treatment with chuna or the addition of sopari.
The court referred to the Tribunal's findings and concluded that the sales of this variety of pan-masala qualify as sales of "tobacco" under item No. 4 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and entry 43 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Consequently, these sales are exempt from all taxes.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the State Government. The State Government was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee. The reference was answered in the affirmative.
-
1982 (1) TMI 169
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to claim set-off under rule 43(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
2. Whether the High Court is required to answer a reference if the applicant wishes to withdraw it.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Claim Set-off under Rule 43(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959
The core issue referred to the High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the opponent was entitled to claim a set-off of the entire amount of tax actually recovered by the selling dealers, rather than just the amount legally recoverable on the sales of scrap batteries. This question was brought under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which allows a party aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal to seek a reference to the High Court for any question of law arising from such order.
2. Whether the High Court is Required to Answer a Reference if the Applicant Wishes to Withdraw It
During the hearing, the applicant-State expressed a desire not to prosecute the reference, suggesting that the question need not be answered. Ordinarily, such a statement would conclude the matter, and the court would record that the question need not be answered. However, the opponent-assessee argued that the party who initiated the reference cannot unilaterally abandon it and that the court has the discretion to decide whether or not to answer the question, considering all relevant circumstances.
The court examined section 61 of the Act, which outlines the procedure for referring questions of law to the High Court. The court noted that the Tribunal can only refer a case upon an application by an aggrieved party and cannot do so suo motu. The High Court's obligation to answer the question arises only upon a full, effective, and complete hearing of the case.
The court referred to the decision in M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, which held that the High Court is not bound to answer a reference if the party who caused it to be made fails to appear or take an interest. Similarly, in Lakshmi Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Supreme Court held that the High Court need not answer a question if it is academic, irrelevant, or does not dispose of the dispute.
The court concluded that the High Court is not bound to answer a reference under all circumstances. If the party who caused the reference to be made wishes to withdraw it before the hearing concludes, the High Court will not answer the question unless it would defeat a vested right of the other party.
The court also considered general principles of law regarding the withdrawal of suits, noting that a plaintiff is generally entitled to withdraw a suit unless it would defeat a vested right of the defendant. This principle was applied to tax references, allowing the party who caused the reference to be made to request its withdrawal.
The court reviewed relevant case law, including Hood Barrs v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which supported the view that a party can withdraw a reference before it is fully heard and argued. The court disagreed with the contrary view in Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that a reference must be decided unless the party fails to appear.
In conclusion, the court held that the State's request not to answer the reference should be granted as it was made before the hearing concluded and no vested right of the assessee was shown to be affected. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs and the question left unanswered.
Final Judgment:
Reference unanswered.
-
1982 (1) TMI 168
Issues: Interpretation of entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding metallic galvanised steel flexible pipes.
Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court dealt with the interpretation of entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, concerning metallic galvanised steel flexible pipes. The key question was whether these pipes could be classified as "articles adapted for use generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles and trailers." The assessee contended that the pipes had various uses beyond automobile components, such as conveying liquids and vibration absorption. The Board, however, argued that since the pipes were sold to automobile dealers for use in vehicles after being cut to size, they fell under entry 3. The Court emphasized that the crucial aspect was whether the articles were "adapted for use generally" as motor vehicle parts and accessories, not just based on sales to automobile dealers. The judgment highlighted the need for a broader analysis of the general trend of trade in the commodity to determine its adaptability as a motor vehicle part or accessory.
The Court criticized both the assessee and the department for not approaching the issue from the correct perspective. It pointed out that the focus should be on whether the article is generally adapted for use as a motor vehicle part or accessory in the trade. The Court stressed that a mere breakdown of sales turnover was insufficient to determine this aspect. Instead, a comprehensive evaluation of the commercial usage trend of the commodity was necessary. The judgment emphasized that the decision should be based on a study of the nature of the article and its general adaptability according to prevailing manufacturing trends, rather than a turnover-based analysis.
Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Board and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, directing the assessing authority to re-examine the case objectively. The assessing authority was instructed to conduct a thorough inquiry into whether the metallic galvanised steel flexible pipes should be taxed at a multi-point rate or if they fell within the scope of entry 3 of the First Schedule. The Court emphasized the need for a trade-wise analysis to determine the general adaptability of the article as a motor vehicle part or accessory. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed.
In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of a comprehensive assessment of the general trend of trade in a commodity to determine its classification under specific tax entries, emphasizing the need for a trade-wise analysis rather than a turnover-based approach.
-
1982 (1) TMI 167
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act for misuse of C forms.
2. Validity of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority and subsequent authorities.
3. Scope of powers of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 21(1) of the State Act.
4. Justification of the Sales Tax Tribunal's decision in precluding the petitioner from raising certain points.
5. Interpretation of the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the Punjab State Electricity Board, a registered dealer under the State and Central Sales Tax Acts, purchased materials for the generation and distribution of electricity using C forms in inter-State trade. The Assessing Authority found that some goods were misused for construction purposes not directly related to the intended use, leading to a penalty imposition under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The penalty amount was initially set at Rs. 74,000 but later reduced by the appellate authority to Rs. 20,103.36. However, the penalty was reinstated to Rs. 74,000 by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, which was upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal.
The petitioner challenged the decision, questioning the Tribunal's justification in precluding them from raising points decided against them by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in its decision-making process. The petitioner sought clarification on three questions of law, including the Tribunal's authority in suo motu proceedings, the consideration of external judgments, and the levy of penalty at a concessional rate.
The High Court analyzed the powers of the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 21(1) of the State Act, emphasizing the wide discretion granted to review the legality and propriety of subordinate authorities' decisions. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Court affirmed that the Commissioner could address other questions beyond the initial subject of proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the Tribunal erred in restricting the petitioner from raising pertinent points. As a result, the Court answered the first question in the negative, indicating a favorable outcome for the assessee.
Given the decision on the first question, the Court did not address the remaining questions, as the matter required reevaluation by the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, the Court concluded the reference without further costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 166
Issues:
1. Validity of rule 26(1) requiring the use of international numerals.
2. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding language and numerals.
3. Scope of rule-making powers under the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the circular dated 26th August, 1978, and the notice dated 2nd January, 1979, issued by the respondent. The petitioner maintained accounts in Gujarati language with Gujarati numerals, which was accepted by authorities under relevant acts. The respondent found the use of Gujarati numerals to be a violation of rule 26(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, and levied a composition fee. The petitioner contended that the rule was beyond the rule-making power conferred under the Act. The court examined the statutory provisions and held that rule 26(1) was not ultra vires of the Act as it fell within the rule-making powers conferred by the Act. The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the circular and notice.
2. The court analyzed the constitutional provisions regarding language and numerals. It was observed that while the Constitution specified languages for official purposes, it did not address the use of numerals for official purposes of the States. The court clarified that numerals are distinct from language and the right to use a language does not inherently include the right to use specific numerals. The court rejected the argument that the use of Gujarati numerals was a constitutional right, as the Act only referred to languages and not numerals. The court concluded that the rule requiring international numerals was reasonable and fell within the rule-making powers granted by the Act.
3. The court considered the scope of rule-making powers under the Act. It noted that section 53(2)(n) enabled rules to be framed regarding the manner in which accounts are maintained. The court found that rule 26(1) mandating the use of international numerals was a valid exercise of rule-making power. The court emphasized that the prescribed numerals were of universal usage and did not unduly burden the assessees. The contention that "international numerals" did not exist was rejected, as it was deemed an unreasonable argument. The court held that the issue of numerals could be addressed through rule-making powers and did not require specific mention in the Act. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1982 (1) TMI 165
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled that the concessional tax rate for certain goods did not apply to "rajmash" and "lobia" as they were not covered under the specified entry. The court interpreted the terms in the entry based on common parlance and upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The reference was answered in the affirmative.
-
1982 (1) TMI 164
The High Court of Orissa ruled that garlic is considered a vegetable and is therefore exempt from sales tax. The court cited previous cases where lemon, chilli, and ginger were also classified as vegetables. The government notification specifically excluded garlic from the definition of vegetables, but until then, garlic was considered a vegetable for sales tax purposes. The court sided with the Tribunal's decision, stating that garlic should be classified as a vegetable unless specifically excluded by the government. The judgment was agreed upon unanimously.
-
1982 (1) TMI 163
The Orissa High Court, in response to a query from the State of Orissa under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, held that sugar-candy falls under the tax exemption for sugar. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling that defined sugar broadly to include all forms of sugar. The Court rejected a conflicting view from the Delhi High Court and ruled in favor of the tax exemption for sugar-candy. The judgment was unanimous, and no costs were awarded.
-
1982 (1) TMI 162
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the respondent under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
2. Compliance with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Validity of the search and seizure under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Indiscriminate seizure of documents.
5. Issuance of receipt for seized documents under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Respondent:
The petitioner argued that the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) was not authorized under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act due to a notification under Section 3B(4)(a) of the Act. The court held that the State Government's power to appoint officers under Section 3(1) of the Act overrides the Commissioner's power under Section 3B(4)(a). The court emphasized that Section 28 is a special provision that should prevail over the general distribution of jurisdiction. The respondent was duly empowered by a notification dated February 1, 1977, to exercise the powers under Section 28. Therefore, the first proposition was rejected.
2. Compliance with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner contended that the search and seizure were illegal due to non-compliance with Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as established in Jhaver's case. The court examined the records and found that the respondent had recorded reasonable grounds for the search, formed an opinion that the evidence could not be obtained otherwise, and specified the items sought. The court concluded that the four prerequisites set by the Supreme Court in Jhaver's case were fulfilled, and thus, the search was not arbitrary or illegal.
3. Validity of the Search and Seizure under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner argued that the search was vitiated as the witnesses were not from the locality, contrary to Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the presence of independent witnesses, rather than their locality, is crucial. Citing Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court noted that non-local witnesses render the search irregular, not illegal. The court found that the witnesses' affidavits claiming they were brought after the search were not credible, given the police records and the absence of any complaint from the witnesses at the time.
4. Indiscriminate Seizure of Documents:
The petitioner claimed that the seizure was indiscriminate and not directed against specific documents evidencing tax evasion. The court referred to Neminath Brothers' case and found that the respondent had applied his mind to each document seized, recording reasons for their relevance. The court also cited Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, noting that some latitude must be permitted in examining documents during a search. The court concluded that the seizure was not indiscriminate or a fishing expedition.
5. Issuance of Receipt for Seized Documents:
The petitioner argued that no receipt was issued for the seized documents, contrary to Section 28(3) of the Act. The court found that the seizure order, which detailed the seized documents and was left at the premises after the partner refused to accept it, constituted a sufficient receipt. The court noted that there is no prescribed form for the receipt, and the seizure order itself fulfilled the requirement.
Additional Ground:
The petitioner raised an additional ground regarding the retention of documents beyond 60 days without permission. The court found that permission for retention beyond 60 days was sought and granted periodically, thus complying with the proviso to Section 28(3) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the search and seizure conducted on January 16, 1981, were not illegal. The petition was dismissed without issuing a rule, and no order as to costs was made.
-
1982 (1) TMI 161
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the resolution passed on 5th December, 1977, for issuing further shares.
2. Shifting of the registered office from Jalpaiguri to Siliguri.
3. Alleged private sales and misapplication of the sale proceeds of tea.
4. Non-receipt of notice for the impugned meeting.
5. Non-publication of the closure of the share register.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Resolution for Issuing Further Shares:
The primary issue was whether the resolution passed on 5th December, 1977, to issue 15,000 equity shares of Rs. 20 each was valid under section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner argued that the resolution was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court noted that the notice and explanatory note did not provide sufficient details about the persons to whom the shares would be allotted or the manner of the issue. The court held that the resolution was invalid because it did not meet the requirements of section 81(1A), which mandates specific information to be provided to shareholders to make an informed decision. The court emphasized that the resolution should have indicated the proposed allottees or the manner of allotment to ensure fair play in corporate management.
2. Shifting of the Registered Office:
The petitioner challenged the shifting of the registered office from Jalpaiguri to Siliguri. The learned judge did not accept the grievance regarding the shifting of the registered office. The court found that the procedural requirements for shifting the office were met, and there was no violation of section 146 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court noted that the publication about the shifting of the registered office was made in newspapers, and there was no evidence to suggest that the shifting was done with any mala fide intent.
3. Alleged Private Sales and Misapplication of Sale Proceeds:
The petitioner alleged private sales and misapplication of the sale proceeds of tea. However, the learned judge did not deal with these allegations specifically. The court noted that the allegations were not clearly established and lacked sufficient evidence. The court found that the particulars of district average sales were produced, and the allegations did not warrant any interference under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Non-receipt of Notice for the Impugned Meeting:
The petitioner contended that they did not receive the notice for the annual general meeting held on 5th December, 1977. The learned judge, based on the certificate of posting, presumed that the notice was duly sent and received. The court observed that the respondent had been taking an interest in the company's affairs through Manish Chandra Mitra, and there was a preponderance of facts indicating that the notice might have been received. The court held that the learned judge was entitled to draw the presumption and there was no error in this factual finding.
5. Non-publication of the Closure of the Share Register:
The court observed that the non-publication of the closure of the share register violated section 154 of the Companies Act, 1956. However, the court noted that this violation did not invalidate the resolution but was a factor to consider in assessing the bona fides of the company's actions. The court found that the non-publication indicated a lack of transparency and fairness in the company's conduct.
Conclusion:
The appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed. The court confirmed the order of the learned trial judge, holding that the resolution for issuing further shares was invalid under section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956. The board of directors was directed to call a fresh annual general meeting in accordance with the law, without considering the increased share capital. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Separate Judgments:
Suhas Chandra Sen, J., agreed with the judgment delivered by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
-
1982 (1) TMI 160
Issues:
Petition under sections 106 and 107 of the Companies Act to restrain respondent-company from amending articles 70(a) and 97 of its articles of association without petitioner's consent.
Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka was approached with a petition seeking to restrain a company from amending specific articles of its association without the petitioner's consent. The respondent company argued that the proposed amendments did not affect the rights of any class of shareholders and that the company had the statutory right to amend its articles. The main contention was that the petition aimed to restrict the company's statutory right to amend its articles. The court issued an emergent notice and stayed the operation of any resolution passed at the general meeting related to the proposed amendments.
The company, incorporated in 1938, had issued right shares in 1980, resulting in a change in the shareholding pattern. The Government, the petitioner, did not act on the offer, leading to a shift in the capital ratio between the Government and other shareholders. This change necessitated the amendment of articles 70(a) and 97 of the company's articles of association. These articles pertained to the State Government's right to nominate directors and the chairman of the board. The court noted that these rights were based on contractual obligations and not directly linked to the shares held by the Government.
Sections 106 and 107 of the Companies Act allow shareholders to challenge alterations affecting their class of shares. The court highlighted the specific rights attached to different classes of shares, emphasizing that the proposed amendments did not impact these rights. It was established that the Government's nomination rights were not tied to any specific class of shares, making the petition not maintainable under these sections. Section 31 of the Act permits companies to alter their articles by special resolution, subject to certain restrictions.
The court concluded that the Government could not invoke the court's protection to maintain a state of affairs no longer warranted by the shareholding pattern. Given the reluctance of other shareholders to uphold the existing provisions, the court held that the petition was not maintainable under sections 106 or 107 of the Act. No other provision was pointed out to support the petition, leading to its dismissal with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 159
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner has filed a suit in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Kapurthala, in which the same matter is sub-judice, and the said suit is still pending?
2. If Issue No. 1 is proved, whether this petition is maintainable?
3. Whether shares Nos. 601 to 700 and shares Nos. 701 to 800 were held jointly by the petitioner and her husband, late Shri Madho Ram Puri, as alleged by the respondents, or 100 out of those were held separately by the petitioner individually and by her late husband individually?
4. Whether the transfer of 100 shares by Raghbir Singh, respondent No. 5, in favour of Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Usha Rani, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, was legal and valid, and in accordance with the relevant articles of association?
5. Whether the transfer of the aforesaid 100 shares by Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Usha Rani, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in favour of Parkash Chand Aggarwal, respondent No. 4, was valid, and in accordance with the articles of association of the company?
6. Whether the register of members of the company requires to be rectified in any manner as a result of the finding on the above issues?
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issues Nos. 1 and 2:
The petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 323/1970 for a declaration regarding the sale of shares, which was decreed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Kapurthala, and later dismissed by the District Judge, Kapurthala. The petitioner appealed, and the High Court restored the trial court's decree. The court concluded that neither the parties nor the subject matter in both litigations were the same, so the present petition under section 155 of the Companies Act is maintainable.
Issue No. 3:
The court examined documents and testimonies to determine the ownership of shares Nos. 601 to 700 and 701 to 800. The evidence showed that both sets of shares were initially held jointly by Madho Ram Puri and Raghbir Singh. The letter dated May 10, 1961, from Madho Ram Puri and Raghbir Singh to the company requested splitting the shares, indicating joint ownership. Consequently, the court concluded that both sets of shares were owned equally by the deceased and Raghbir Singh, and after Madho Ram Puri's death, the petitioner and Raghbir Singh became joint owners of both sets of shares.
Issue No. 4:
The court referred to articles 20 to 23 of the company's articles of association, which restrict the transfer of shares to non-shareholders unless existing shareholders are unwilling to purchase them. The petitioner had served notices on the company for registered cover notifications, but the company failed to send a proper notice regarding the transfer of shares by Raghbir Singh to Smt. Usha Rani. The resolution dated September 7, 1969, was found to have interpolations, and the quorum for the meeting was not met as per article 98. Therefore, the transfer of shares by Raghbir Singh to Smt. Usha Rani was deemed illegal. However, the transfer to Smt. Raj Rani, a shareholder, was valid.
Issue No. 5:
Since the transfer of shares by Raghbir Singh to Smt. Usha Rani was invalid, she could not further transfer them to Parkash Chand Aggarwal, respondent No. 4. Additionally, Smt. Raj Rani could not transfer shares to Parkash Chand Aggarwal, a non-shareholder, without following the procedure in articles 20 to 23. Hence, the transfers by Smt. Usha Rani and Smt. Raj Rani to Parkash Chand Aggarwal were also invalid.
Issue No. 6:
Based on the findings, the court held that Raghbir Singh was rightly shown as the owner of shares Nos. 601 to 700 and 701 to 800, along with the petitioner in the register of members. The transfer of shares by Raghbir Singh to Smt. Raj Rani was valid, but the transfer to Smt. Usha Rani and subsequent transfers to Parkash Chand Aggarwal were invalid. The court directed that the registers of the company be rectified accordingly and made no order as to costs due to partial success.
-
1982 (1) TMI 157
The petition under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 sought winding-up of the respondent-company for unpaid debts. The respondent disputed the debt claimed by the petitioner-firm, leading the court to reject the petition and advise the petitioner to seek resolution in a civil court.
-
1982 (1) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee firm was entitled to continuation of registration for the assessment year 1977-78.
2. Whether the business of the assessee firm was in existence during the relevant assessment year.
3. Whether the interest income received by the assessee firm should be assessed as income from business or income from other sources.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Continuation of Registration:
The primary issue in the departmental appeal was whether the AAC erred in directing the ITO to grant continuation of registration to the assessee firm. The assessee had filed Form No. 12 for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1977-78. The ITO initially refused the continuation of registration on the grounds that the business had not commenced during the relevant year. However, the AAC held that the assessee fulfilled the requisite conditions under section 184(7) for continuation of registration, as there was no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of the partners as per the deed of partnership. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, stating that the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration as the conditions laid down in section 184(7) were satisfied.
2. Existence of Business:
The ITO argued that the business must be in existence in the relevant year and since no cars were sold by the assessee, the business had not commenced. The AAC and the Tribunal, however, found that the business was brought into existence by obtaining the dealership of M/s Maruti Limited and depositing Rs. 4,00,000. The Tribunal noted that the business of the partnership firm, as per the deed, was to deal in motor cars, scooters, and accessories. Although the actual sale of cars did not occur due to M/s Maruti Limited not manufacturing any cars, the intention to carry on business was evident. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in (1981) 127 ITR 727 (MP), which held that the intention to carry on business is essential, and the mere fact that no business was carried on in the relevant previous year does not negate the existence of the firm.
3. Assessment of Interest Income:
The ITO assessed the interest income received from M/s Maruti Limited as income from other sources, arguing that no business was carried on by the assessee. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 with M/s Maruti Limited was a commercial asset of the assessee and the interest income should be assessed as business income. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in (1979) 120 ITR 897 (Bom.), which held that interest income on deposits made for business purposes should be assessed as business income. The Tribunal concluded that the business was in existence, and the interest income was rightly assessable as business income.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, upholding the AAC's order to continue the registration of the assessee firm for the assessment year 1977-78. The Tribunal found that the business of the assessee firm was in existence, the firm was genuine, and the interest income should be assessed as business income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the intention to carry on business and the fulfillment of conditions under section 184(7) for the continuation of registration.
-
1982 (1) TMI 130
Issues:
Disallowance of payments made to grandsons for the use of goodwill in a partnership firm.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the disallowance of payments made by an assessee firm to two minor grandsons for the use of goodwill in a partnership firm. The firm, engaged in commission agency and cotton business, made payments to the grandsons as per a partnership deed and a will executed by one of the partners. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the deduction, citing reasons related to the valuation of goodwill and applicability of section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee firm's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) was unsuccessful. During the hearing before the Appellate Tribunal, the counsel for the assessee argued that the payments to the grandsons were made for commercial considerations, as they were bequeathed the deceased partner's share in the goodwill. The counsel relied on various legal precedents to support the commercial nature of the payments.
On the other hand, the departmental representative contended that there was no binding agreement between the deceased partner and the continuing partners regarding the payments. It was argued that the deceased partner did not have a specific share in any asset, including goodwill, and the will did not create a legal obligation on the surviving partners to make the payments.
The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the deceased partner had bequeathed his share of goodwill to his grandsons, and the continuing partners had accepted the obligation to make payments for the use of goodwill as per the partnership deed. The Tribunal determined that the payments were a condition precedent for carrying on the business and amounted to overriding title. It was also observed that the quantum of the payments, though disputed by the revenue, was reasonable considering the circumstances.
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of the payments made to the grandsons, totaling Rs. 11,802, as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the payments were made for the purpose of carrying on the business and were not excessive, thereby rejecting the disallowance made by the lower authorities.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasizes the commercial nature of the payments made by the assessee firm to the grandsons for the use of goodwill in the partnership firm, highlighting the legal obligations arising from the partnership deed and the will executed by the deceased partner.
........
|
9911796707
