|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 160 Records
-
1979 (8) TMI 203
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Conflict between the decisions in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to Revise the Order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:
The primary issue revolves around whether the Board of Revenue has the jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner when the order has already been appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that once an appeal is filed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Board of Revenue loses its jurisdiction to revise the order under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This contention was supported by a decision in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that the Board had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner once an appeal had been filed by the assessee before the Tribunal.
2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, outlines the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue. Sub-section (1) allows the Board to call for and examine orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, sub-section (2)(b) imposes a restriction, stating that the Board shall not pass any order if the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or of a revision in the High Court. The court interpreted this provision to mean that the Board loses its revisional power once the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is appealed. The court emphasized that the statute treats the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as a single, indivisible order, and thus, the Board cannot interfere once any part of the order is under appeal.
3. Conflict Between the Decisions in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu:
The court addressed the apparent conflict between the decisions in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu. The former decision, dealing with the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, held that the Board of Revenue loses jurisdiction to revise an order once it is appealed. The latter decision, dealing with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, held that the Commissioner's power to revise is merely suspended during the pendency of an appeal. The court concluded that there was no real conflict because the statutory provisions in the two Acts were different. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act imposes a complete ban on the Board's revisional power once an appeal is filed, whereas the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act only suspends the power during the appeal's pendency.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the decision in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, confirming that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner once the order was appealed to the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 26th August 1974 was set aside. There was no order as to costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 202
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals by Deputy Commissioner for non-payment of admitted tax.
2. Tribunal's decision to set aside Deputy Commissioner's order and remand the matter.
3. Unsatisfactory nature of the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of the dismissal of appeals by the Deputy Commissioner due to non-payment of admitted tax by the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals as the tax had not been paid as required by section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessee argued that they were permitted to pay the tax in instalments by the Government. However, the Deputy Commissioner found this plea invalid. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remitted the matter back to that authority to allow the appellants to prove their contentions regarding the delay in depositing the tax due.
2. The Court also discussed the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remand the matter. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the contentions raised by the assessee, remitted the files back to the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal directed the Deputy Commissioner to give the appellants an opportunity to file applications for condonation of the delay in depositing the tax due. The High Court highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of such remand orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, citing previous cases where similar issues were addressed. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have either disposed of the application itself or directed the lower authority to do so, instead of merely setting aside the order.
3. Lastly, the High Court discussed the unsatisfactory nature of the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court referred to previous cases where similar issues were raised and addressed. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal, as an appellate authority, should either dispose of the application itself or direct the lower authority to do so. The Court allowed the revisions, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the law and observations made in previous judgments. No order as to costs was made in this regard.
-
1979 (8) TMI 201
Issues: Review application based on discovery of new facts, interpretation of statutory provisions, scope of review under the Sales Tax Act, applicability of rectification provisions.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's refusal to review its earlier order. The Tribunal had initially held that galvanized plain sheets were not declared goods, thereby denying relief to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee sought a review based on a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and a circular from the South Indian Iron and Hardware Merchants' Association. The Court examined the provisions of Section 36(6)(a) of the Act, which allows review based on the discovery of new and important facts not previously known to the applicant. It was determined that the present case did not meet the criteria for review as it primarily involved an interpretation of the term "iron and steel" in the Sales Tax Act, rather than the discovery of new facts.
In a similar context, the Court referenced a previous case involving Section 38(8) of the Act and highlighted the requirement for new and important facts to be the basis for a review application. Drawing from precedent, the Court emphasized that subsequent decisions or interpretations could not be grounds for review if the original decision was based on existing facts and legal provisions. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's rejection of the review application in this case.
Furthermore, the assessee suggested treating the application as one for rectification under Section 55 of the Act. The Court clarified that Section 55(4) stipulates that provisions regarding appeal and revision apply to rectification orders. However, it was emphasized that rectification under this provision pertains to correcting an earlier order, not refusing rectification. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. The Court affirmed the rejection of the review application and highlighted the limitations on seeking rectification under the Sales Tax Act.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions for review applications and rectifications under the Sales Tax Act. It clarifies the criteria for review based on new facts and emphasizes that subsequent decisions alone do not warrant a review if the original decision was made in accordance with existing laws. The Court's analysis provides guidance on the scope and limitations of seeking review or rectification in tax matters, ensuring adherence to legal principles and precedents.
-
1979 (8) TMI 200
Issues:
1. Whether a recovery certificate issued by the assessing authority constitutes an order against which an appeal lies under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment in question dealt with the issue of whether a recovery certificate issued by the assessing authority could be considered an order against which an appeal was permissible under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessment years in question were 1953-54, 1954-55, and 1955-56, with the certificates being issued between 1959-60. The appellate authority initially dismissed the appeals on the basis that recovery certificates were informational and not orders, thus no appeal lay against them. However, the revising authority set aside the orders and remanded the cases to the appellate authority, asserting that recovery certificates were akin to orders of execution and therefore appealable. The revising authority emphasized the importance of allowing appeals against recovery certificates to prevent situations where the assessee would be left without a remedy and subjected to hardship.
The revising authority's reasoning was challenged, with the argument that the fear of recovery certificates being issued without assessment proceedings was unfounded, as the assessee could always seek recourse through Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the right to appeal was a statutory remedy, not an inherent one, and the provisions of section 9 of the Act needed to be examined to determine the appeal's permissibility. The original section 9 did not include recovery certificates as appealable orders, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable. The revising authority's reliance on the amended section 9 was deemed erroneous, as the appeal was not viable even under the amended provision.
Further analysis delved into the definition of "order" within legal contexts, highlighting that a recovery certificate did not meet the criteria of a formal decision or authoritative command, as required for classification as an order. The comparison to execution proceedings was deemed inapplicable, and the form of the order, rather than its effect, was deemed crucial in determining appeal eligibility. Consequently, the appellate authority's stance that no appeal lay against recovery certificates was upheld, leading to the success of the revisions and the setting aside of the Additional Judge's order. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200, with the petitions being allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 199
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the writ petition regarding notices (exhibits 1, 2, and 3).
2. Jurisdiction of the CTO to reassess under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
3. Validity of notice (exhibit 3) under section 12 of the Act.
4. Continuation of notice (exhibit 8) from notice (exhibit 3) and limitation.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The court examined whether the writ petition should be dismissed due to delay concerning notices (exhibits 1, 2, and 3). The respondents argued that the petitioner did not claim specific relief regarding these notices and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the assessing authority by filing a reply. The court considered precedents where delay and laches barred relief, such as Purshottamdas Chowdhury v. Income-tax Officer and Bishnu Charan Mohanty v. State of Orissa. However, the court also noted that in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, as discussed in Girindranath Paul v. Income-tax Officer, delay does not bar a writ of prohibition. Since the assessment proceedings were still pending and there was a patent lack of jurisdiction, the court held that delay was not a bar to the present writ petition.
2. Jurisdiction of the CTO:
The court addressed whether the petitioner could raise the objection of limitation regarding notice (exhibit 8) before the CTO. The respondents cited cases like Lalji Haridas v. Income-tax Officer and Income-tax Officer, Kottayam v. R.M. Subramania Iyer, which held that such objections should be raised before the assessing authority and not in writ proceedings. The court agreed with this view, stating that the question of limitation under section 12 of the Act is within the jurisdiction and competence of the CTO. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to raise this issue in a writ petition.
3. Validity of Notice (Exhibit 3):
The court considered whether notice (exhibit 3) substantially complied with section 12 of the Act. The respondents conceded that notices (exhibits 1 and 2) were not in the prescribed form. However, they argued that notice (exhibit 3) was in substantial compliance with section 12, even if not in the prescribed form S.T. 12A under rule 55A of the Rules. The court did not express an opinion on the validity of these notices or whether notice (exhibit 8) was a continuation of notice (exhibit 3) because the petitioner did not seek relief for quashing the earlier notices in the writ petition.
4. Continuation of Notice (Exhibit 8):
The court examined whether notice (exhibit 8) was in continuation of notice (exhibit 3) and thus within the limitation period. The respondents argued that the proceedings had already commenced with the issue of notice (exhibit 1) and that notice (exhibit 8) was a continuation. The court did not decide on this issue due to the petitioner's failure to seek relief for quashing the earlier notices.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner could not raise the question of limitation in writ proceedings and did not seek specific relief for quashing the earlier notices. The court did not award costs due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Judgment:
Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 198
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 29-B of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973 regarding reimbursement of tax paid on inter-State sales.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court dealt with the interpretation of section 29-B of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973, concerning the reimbursement of tax paid on inter-State sales. The case involved an assessee who had purchased oil-seeds from both registered and unregistered dealers. The assessee paid tax on purchases from unregistered dealers, but not on purchases from registered dealers as tax was already paid by them. Subsequently, a tax was imposed on the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for inter-State sales, which was paid by the assessee. An application for reimbursement under section 29-B was made, which was partially allowed by the Sales Tax Officer, stating that the assessee was not entitled to a refund for tax-paid purchases from registered dealers. However, the revising authority allowed the application, emphasizing that section 29-B permits reimbursement for inter-State sales.
The court analyzed the essential requirements for the applicability of section 29-B, which included the levy of tax on goods referred to in the Central Sales Tax Act, subsequent sale in inter-State trade, application for refund within six months, and reimbursement to the person making inter-State trade. It was established that the assessee met all criteria for reimbursement under the section as the goods were sold in inter-State trade, and tax was paid under the Central Sales Tax Act.
The court rejected the argument that reimbursement should only be made to the person who directly paid the tax, emphasizing that the language of the section did not restrict reimbursement based on the payer of tax. It cited a previous case to highlight the evolution of the reimbursement provision from the Ordinance to the Act, indicating a shift towards reimbursing the person engaged in inter-State trade rather than the direct taxpayer. The court concluded that the assessee was entitled to reimbursement as per the provisions of section 29-B.
In the final decision, the revision was dismissed, and the assessee was granted costs. The judgment clarified the interpretation of section 29-B and affirmed the entitlement of the assessee to reimbursement for tax paid on inter-State sales, irrespective of the direct payer of tax.
-
1979 (8) TMI 197
The High Court of Allahabad decided that adhesive falls under the category of chemical. The revising authority held that adhesive is prepared by chemicals and used for industrial purposes, making it a chemical. The court set aside the order of the Additional Revising Authority and directed a fresh decision.
-
1979 (8) TMI 196
Issues:
The issue involved in this case is whether condensed milk qualifies for exemption under the relevant sales tax notification.
Summary:
The revision petition was filed under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, concerning the eligibility of condensed milk for exemption. The assessee argued that condensed milk should be considered as milk and thus exempt from tax. The assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee based on a decision of the Allahabad High Court. The State challenged this decision in revision before the Madras High Court.
The relevant notification exempts "all sales of paddy, rice, cholam, cumbu, ragi, thinai, varagu, samai, kudiraivali, rice products, and milk" from tax. The Allahabad High Court had previously determined that condensed milk is essentially milk in concentrated form, qualifying for exemption under a similar notification. The State argued that the manufacturing process involved in producing condensed milk makes it distinct from milk. However, the Court referenced previous cases where processed milk, even with added ingredients, was still considered milk for exemption purposes.
The Court concluded that the process of dehydrating milk to create condensed milk does not change its fundamental nature as milk. Just as boiled milk remains milk despite alterations, condensed milk retains its essential character. The popular understanding of milk also supports this interpretation, as even commercially bottled milk undergoes processing without losing its identity as milk. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the eligibility of condensed milk for exemption under the sales tax notification.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, ruling that condensed milk qualifies for exemption under the relevant notification.
-
1979 (8) TMI 195
Issues:
1. Quashing of orders by Bihar Commercial Taxes Tribunal.
2. Exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy in computation of limitation.
3. Jurisdiction of Tribunal to review and recall orders.
4. Alleged error of law by Tribunal.
5. Misleading practices of the Tribunal in excluding time for limitation purposes.
6. Condoning delay in filing application under section 33 of Bihar Sales Tax Act.
7. Legality of the order passed by the Tribunal.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash annexure-7 issued by the Bihar Commercial Taxes Tribunal, which reviewed and recalled its previous orders. The applications related to assessment under the Bihar Sales Tax Act for three consecutive years. The Tribunal's decision to recall the orders was challenged by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner argued for the exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy in the computation of limitation, relying on Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Tribunal contended that this provision does not apply to applications for reference to the High Court under the Sales Tax Act, leading to a dispute over the timeliness of the application.
3. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to review and recall its orders was questioned by the petitioner, asserting that there was no apparent mistake in the original orders. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's decision to review was erroneous.
4. The petitioner alleged a gross error of law by the Tribunal in denying the exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies, leading to the application being deemed barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that this error warranted the quashing of the Tribunal's decision.
5. The petitioner raised concerns about the misleading practices of the Tribunal in excluding time for limitation purposes, potentially leading to confusion and delays in filing applications. The petitioner highlighted the long-standing practice of the Tribunal in this regard.
6. The issue of condoning the delay in filing the application under section 33 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act was discussed. The petitioner claimed to have acted in good faith based on legal advice, and the Tribunal might have considered this as an extenuating circumstance.
7. The legality of the Tribunal's order was questioned, with the Court ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Court allowed the applications, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the reference applications filed by the petitioner, without imposing any costs.
This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the Court's decision on each matter.
-
1979 (8) TMI 194
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of sales transactions (inter-State vs. intra-State).
2. Classification of second sale of coal.
3. Exemption from sales tax.
4. Jurisdiction of Delhi sales tax authorities.
5. Validity of tax levied under the Central Act.
6. Inclusion of freight charges in sale price and turnover.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Sales Transactions:
The primary issue was whether the sales of coal and coke to various coal retailers in Delhi, by endorsing railway receipts while the goods were in transit, constituted a single inter-State sale or two separate sales. The court determined that the sales in question did not fall under section 3(b) read with explanation 1 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court emphasized that the physical presence of the goods in Delhi at the time of sale was crucial, making these intra-State sales under section 2(g) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Classification of Second Sale of Coal:
The court examined whether the second sale of coal by the dealer, through endorsement of railway receipts, was an inter-State sale under section 3(b) of the Central Act or an intra-State sale under section 2(g) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. It concluded that these transactions were intra-State sales, as the goods were physically within Delhi at the time of sale.
3. Exemption from Sales Tax:
The court addressed whether the subsequent inter-State sale of coal was exempt from sales tax under section 6(2) of the Central Act. The court answered this in the negative, indicating that the sales were not exempt and were subject to tax under the Central Act.
4. Jurisdiction of Delhi Sales Tax Authorities:
The issue of whether Delhi sales tax authorities had the jurisdiction to levy tax on the subsequent inter-State sale of coal was examined. The court concluded that the Delhi authorities did not have such jurisdiction, as the sales were intra-State transactions.
5. Validity of Tax Levied under the Central Act:
The court considered whether the tax levied on the subsequent sales of coal, treating them as inter-State transactions, could be deemed valid under the Central Act. The court answered this in the negative, reinforcing that the sales were intra-State and not subject to the Central Act's provisions.
6. Inclusion of Freight Charges in Sale Price and Turnover:
The final issue was whether the freight charges paid by coal retailers should be included in the sale price and turnover of the dealer. The court held that freight charges should be included in the sale price, as there was no evidence suggesting that the freight charges were separately charged and not part of the sale price. The court noted that in commercial transactions, it is unlikely that the dealer would bear the freight charges themselves.
Conclusion:
The court answered the reference accordingly, emphasizing that the sales in question were intra-State transactions and not inter-State sales, and that freight charges should be included in the sale price. The court also suggested that the department examine whether the dealer was entitled to any benefit under a specific circular mentioned in the Deputy Commissioner's order.
-
1979 (8) TMI 193
The High Court of Madras dismissed the State's revision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act against an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the exemption notification for the entire year 1970-71 applied from the date of issue and not just from a later date, following a precedent set by the Bombay High Court. The revision was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1979 (8) TMI 192
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or local sales.
2. Applicability of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Validity of the assessment by the Tamil Nadu sales tax authorities.
4. Interpretation of the statutory provisions and relevant case law.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or local sales:
The assessee, a company dealing in Ambassador motor cars and automobile spare parts, contended that the sales in question were local transactions in Andhra Pradesh and not inter-State sales. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention, leading to the revision petitions before the High Court. The transactions involved the movement of cars from the head office in Madras to the branch in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, and subsequent sales to customers in Nellore. The assessee argued that these were local sales taxable in Andhra Pradesh, not inter-State sales.
2. Applicability of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act:
Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act states that a sale or purchase of goods is deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade if it occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. The Court examined whether the movement of vehicles from Madras to Nellore was occasioned by the sale. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa, which held that if the movement of goods is in pursuance of a contract of sale, it is deemed to be an inter-State sale. The Court concluded that the movement of cars from Madras to Nellore was occasioned by the sales contracts, making them inter-State sales under Section 3(a).
3. Validity of the assessment by the Tamil Nadu sales tax authorities:
The assessee was assessed by the Tamil Nadu sales tax authorities for the inter-State sales. The Court upheld the validity of the assessment, stating that the transactions fell within the scope of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court rejected the assessee's argument that the sales were local transactions in Andhra Pradesh and not taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. Interpretation of the statutory provisions and relevant case law:
The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa and Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, to interpret the statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that the movement of goods must be in pursuance of a contract of sale for it to be considered an inter-State sale. The Court also discussed the decision in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which examined similar issues and supported the conclusion that the transactions in question were inter-State sales.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that the transactions were inter-State sales taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The movement of cars from Madras to Nellore was occasioned by the sales contracts, and the assessments by the Tamil Nadu sales tax authorities were valid. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and relevant case law. The revision petitions were dismissed with costs, and the counsel's fee was set at Rs. 250.
-
1979 (8) TMI 191
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "machinery" under a specific notification for sales tax assessment.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the term "machinery" under a particular sales tax notification. The main issue is whether an air blowing instrument, referred to as bhathi, falls under the category of machinery taxable at 6 per cent under Notification No. ST-7098/X dated 1st October, 1965, or should be considered an unclassified item for tax purposes. The assessee, a dealer in hardware and chemicals, contended that the air blowing instrument should be taxed at 2 per cent, not 6 per cent. The revising authority initially accepted this argument based on previous decisions in the assessee's favor for other assessment years.
Upon analysis, the court referred to precedents to define machinery. Citing the case of Engineering Traders v. State of U.P., the court emphasized that machinery includes instruments transmitting and modifying power, force, and motion, ranging from simple appliances to complex machinery used in industries. The court also referred to Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Chandok Traders, where a hair clipper was deemed machinery under a similar notification. Additionally, cases like Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ramesh Prasad Batuk Prasad and Jackard Machinery Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., further supported the broad interpretation of machinery under the said notification.
Based on these precedents, the court concluded that the air blowing instrument qualifies as machinery as it transmits energy or force from one point to another, falling within the scope of the notification. Therefore, the sales of the air blowing instrument should be taxed at 6 per cent, not 2 per cent as claimed by the assessee. The court deemed the revising authority's decision as legally erroneous and allowed the revision with costs imposed on the assessee.
In summary, the judgment clarifies the definition of machinery under the sales tax notification, emphasizing that even simple appliances like the air blowing instrument can be categorized as machinery if they transmit and modify power, force, or motion. The decision provides a clear interpretation of the term "machinery" for tax assessment purposes, based on established legal precedents.
-
1979 (8) TMI 190
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax for the years 1967-68 to 1969-70.
2. Whether the amount collected by the petitioner was in the guise of sales tax or as Association Fund.
3. Whether the demand notice issued by the respondent is valid.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a coconut dealer, collected amounts during the years 1967-68 to 1969-70. The respondent issued a demand notice claiming the petitioner's liability for sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the amounts collected were for conducting appeals and not as sales tax. The court examined the history of confusion regarding the taxation of coconuts and held that the petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax as the amounts were collected for the Association Fund during pending tax cases.
2. The crucial issue was whether the amounts collected by the petitioner were in the guise of sales tax or as Association Fund. The respondent argued that the petitioner had collected 3% of the turnover as tax, while the petitioner claimed it was for the benefit of the association of coconut dealers. The court referred to a similar case where the collection was deemed a deposit and not tax. Applying the same reasoning, the court held that since the petitioner collected the amounts as Association Fund, not as sales tax, the demand for payment was invalid.
3. The validity of the demand notice issued by the respondent was questioned by the petitioner. The court noted that the respondent did not provide any show cause notice or conduct an inquiry before concluding that the amounts were collected as tax. Relying on precedent, the court found that the respondent's demand was unfounded as the amounts were not collected as sales tax. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the petitioner and directing the respondent to bear the costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 189
The High Court of Madras dismissed the tax case involving the interpretation of section 7-A(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The dealer sold tins along with oil, so the section did not apply as the tins were sold in the State as part of the oil. The petition was dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 188
The Kerala High Court held that arrow-root is liable to be assessed as "vegetables" under entry 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Court ruled that arrow-root satisfies the popular sense and trade definition of vegetables, similar to carrots and radish. The decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld, and the revision by the State was dismissed. (Case: Gopal Nambiyar v. Kerala)
-
1979 (8) TMI 187
Issues:
1. Alleged illegal seizure of books of account by the Commercial Tax Officer.
2. Authority of the respondent to retain the seized books beyond the permissible period.
3. Impact of subsequent law changes on the case.
4. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding the return of the books of account.
Analysis:
The petitioner alleged that the respondent Commercial Tax Officer visited the rice mill premises and indiscriminately collected books of account, which were not returned despite reminders. The petitioner approached the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution, claiming the seizure was illegal and that the respondent had no authority to retain the books beyond 30 days without written permission from higher authorities, as per the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The respondent denied the allegations and asserted that the seizure was normal and legal. The court noted that some facts were undisputed and decided to focus on a legal question rather than the legality of the seizure based on the pleadings.
The court examined the law in force at the time of seizure, which mandated that seized accounts should not be retained for more than 30 days without permission from higher authorities. It was found that the Deputy Commissioner's permission to retain the books was obtained approximately 49 days after the seizure, rendering the retention beyond 30 days illegal. The government pleader argued that subsequent permission was granted and the law had been changed to allow a 60-day retention period. However, the court held that the subsequent law change was prospective and could not cure the illegality of the extended retention period. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the immediate return of the books of account to enable compliance with legal requirements.
Given the petitioner's predicament of being unable to file returns without the account books, the court ordered the return of the books within a week. The petitioner was also directed to produce the books before the assessing authority if required. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the petitioner and communicated the order to the respondent. The petition was allowed, granting the relief sought by the petitioner.
-
1979 (8) TMI 186
Whether, in sales of cement effected by the appellant under the Cement Control Order, 1967, the amount of freight formed part of the "sale price" so as to be exigible to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Having regard to the opinion of the Law Department of the Government of India, no clause was introduced in the contract with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals providing for reimbursement of the amount of sales tax to the appellant in case the appellant was liable to pay the same under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. We thought that in the absence of any such clause in the contract, there would be no legal liability on the Central Government to pay to the appellant the amount of sales tax on the freight component of the price in respect of transactions of sale of cement entered into by the appellant with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals
-
1979 (8) TMI 176
Issues:
- Application for amending Company Application No. 40 of 1978
- Barred by limitation under section 543 of the Companies Act
- Interpretation of section 458A in computing the period of limitation
- Applicability of section 458A to the instant application filed under order VI, rule 17, CPC
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking to amend Company Application No. 40 of 1978 filed by the official liquidator representing a company in liquidation. The key issue raised was whether the application was barred by limitation under section 543 of the Companies Act. The respondents contended that the application, filed on February 23, 1979, was beyond the five-year limitation period from the date of the winding-up order. However, the applicant argued that the period of limitation should be computed in accordance with section 458A, which excludes certain time periods. The court analyzed section 458A, which mandates the exclusion of the period from the commencement of winding-up to the winding-up order and one year thereafter in computing the limitation period. The court held that the exclusion period totaled one year, six months, and 22 days, making the application timely as it fell within the extended timeframe.
Regarding the interpretation of section 458A, the court rejected the respondent's argument that only one year from the winding-up order should be excluded. The court emphasized that both the period from the commencement of winding-up to the order and one year post-order must be excluded for computing the limitation period under section 543. The judgment clarified that the exclusion period under section 458A applies to applications filed under section 543(1), including the instant application filed under order VI, rule 17, CPC. The court dismissed the argument that section 458A does not apply to the instant application, stating that the substantive relief sought falls under section 543(1), thus making section 458A applicable.
Although various objections were raised on the merits of the reliefs sought through the proposed amendment, the court ruled that such objections could be addressed post-amendment approval. Consequently, the court allowed the application for amendment as requested, permitting the respondents to file an additional counter to the main Company Application No. 40 of 1978. The court made no order as to costs, directing the liquidator's costs to be borne by the estate.
-
1979 (8) TMI 175
Issues Involved:
1. Interim Orders and Appointment of Special Officer
2. Alleged Illegal Allotment of Shares
3. Mismanagement and Misappropriation of Company Funds
4. Validity of Directors' Minutes Book
5. Functioning and Quorum of the Board of Directors
6. Convening of Requisition Meetings
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interim Orders and Appointment of Special Officer
The court had issued ad interim orders appointing a special officer to take possession and inventory of the respondent-company's statutory books and documents. The respondents were allowed to apply for vacating or modifying these orders. The primary point for consideration was whether these interim orders should be maintained or vacated, and whether a special officer should be appointed given the circumstances. The court noted the absence of an active board of directors and the lack of authorization for representation in court proceedings.
2. Alleged Illegal Allotment of Shares
The petitioners alleged that 1,200 shares were wrongfully, illegally, and clandestinely allotted to certain respondents, violating Article 5 of the company's articles of association and Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the petitioners had made a prima facie case showing serious questions to be tried, including allegations of mala fide intentions and ulterior motives to gain control of the company. The court also noted the delay in making the application but accepted the petitioners' explanation that they discovered the wrongful allotment only in April 1979.
3. Mismanagement and Misappropriation of Company Funds
The petitioners alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by the respondents, including the renovation of a company flat for personal use and diversion of funds through another company. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of these allegations, including violations of Section 295 of the Companies Act, 1956, by obtaining loans in the name of others.
4. Validity of Directors' Minutes Book
The court examined the directors' minutes book produced by the special officer and found it to be in violation of Section 193 of the Companies Act, 1956, as it was a loose leaf binder and typewritten. The court held that such a book is not admissible as it could lead to interpolation, manipulation, and fabrication.
5. Functioning and Quorum of the Board of Directors
The court noted that there was no active board of directors at the present moment, as the company required three directors to constitute a quorum, and there were none. The court dismissed the submission that the resignation of a director could be withdrawn, noting that the disputes before the court made it unlikely for the board to function properly.
6. Convening of Requisition Meetings
The court observed that both groups had given requisitions for holding meetings, and respondent No. 2 had convened two general meetings. However, the court decided that it would not be proper to allow these meetings to be held until the interim application was disposed of, given the serious disputes and allegations of forgeries and defalcations.
Conclusion:
The court appointed Mr. Moni Bhusan Sarkar and Mr. Monindra Kumar Bose as joint special officers to supervise and control the business and management of the company. The joint special officers were directed to convene a board meeting to ascertain the directors' willingness to act and to decide on the conduct of the litigation. The interim orders were modified to allow respondent No. 6 to resume duties and to continue the ad interim injunctions. The requisition meetings were to be adjourned for a month. The respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition by 13th August, 1979, and the matter was scheduled for further hearing on 22nd August, 1979.
........
|
9911796707
