|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 533 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 808
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the demand for sales tax at 9% on maize seeds.
2. Authority of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue directions.
3. Legal provisions regarding the assessment and demand of sales tax.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the demand for sales tax at 9% on maize seeds:
The petitioner, a seeds company, contested the demand for sales tax at 9% on maize seeds, arguing that maize seeds should be taxed at 4% as per Notification No. 1026/77/14545 dated December 26, 1977. The State contended that maize seeds are not covered by the term "cereal" under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and thus, the applicable tax rate is 9%. The court noted that the petitioner had been paying sales tax at 4% for several years, and no final assessment had been made under Section 17 of the Bihar Finance Act, nor any action taken under Section 20 for escaped turnover.
2. Authority of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue directions:
The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had no legal authority under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, to issue directions to the assessing authority, which exercises quasi-judicial functions. The court agreed, stating that the Commissioner is not empowered to issue such directions under the Act and that the assessing authority exceeded its jurisdiction by demanding tax based on the Commissioner's instruction.
3. Legal provisions regarding the assessment and demand of sales tax:
The court examined various provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, including Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 25, which outline the procedures for tax assessment, filing returns, and recovering tax. The court emphasized that the dealer is required to file a return and pay the tax due according to the return. If the tax due is not paid, a demand notice is issued under Section 25, and penalties may be imposed for non-payment. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, which held that a dealer cannot be penalized for paying tax according to the return, even if the final assessment determines a higher tax liability. The court concluded that the assessing authority could not demand additional tax without conducting an assessment as provided under the Act.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notices demanding sales tax at 9% on maize seeds, stating that the Commissioner had no authority to issue such directions and that the assessing authority must independently determine the tax rate through proper assessment procedures. The writ application was allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the applicable tax rate, leaving it to the assessing authority to determine in accordance with the law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 807
Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of the total value of goods.
2. Direction to deposit security on goods covered with trip sheet.
3. Direction to deposit security for goods found in excess.
4. Jurisdiction of Trade Tax Officer under rule 87(3).
5. Consideration of circumstances for the truck stopping at specific locations.
6. Applicability of section 28-A of the Act.
7. Direction to deposit cash security for the release of goods.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Estimation of the Total Value of Goods:
The Tribunal estimated the total value of the goods at Rs. 8,00,000, which included Rs. 5,50,000 for goods declared in the trip sheet and Rs. 2,50,000 for goods found in excess. This estimation was contested by the applicant, who argued that the value should be Rs. 5,77,271. The Tribunal's decision was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the discrepancies found during the physical verification of the goods.
2. Direction to Deposit Security on Goods Covered with Trip Sheet:
The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit security on goods that were covered with the trip sheet. This decision was supported by the fact that the goods were not accompanied by proper and genuine documents, as evidenced by the discrepancies found during the inspection.
3. Direction to Deposit Security for Goods Found in Excess:
The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit security equivalent to 15% of the value of Rs. 2,50,000 for the goods found in excess. The applicant's request for a modified trip sheet was rejected due to the lack of credible evidence supporting their explanation for the discrepancies.
4. Jurisdiction of Trade Tax Officer under Rule 87(3):
The applicant argued that the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, had no jurisdiction under rule 87(3) to check the goods covered with form XXXIV while in transit. However, the Tribunal found that the tax authorities were empowered to intercept and seize goods if they discovered that the transit pass was obtained on fraudulent misrepresentation and that the goods were intended for sale within the State.
5. Consideration of Circumstances for the Truck Stopping at Specific Locations:
The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's explanation for the truck stopping at Jatnibagh and North Vijay Colony, Agra. The explanations provided by the applicant were found to be contradictory and unsupported by evidence, leading to the conclusion that the goods were brought into the State with the intention to sell and evade tax.
6. Applicability of Section 28-A of the Act:
The Tribunal held that section 28-A of the Act was applicable in this case. The issuance of a transit pass in form No. XXXIV did not deprive the authorities of their power to seize the vehicle if they discovered that the transit pass was obtained on a fraudulent misrepresentation. The authorities were authorized to seize goods if they found that the goods were being transported for sale within the State.
7. Direction to Deposit Cash Security for the Release of Goods:
The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit a cash security of Rs. 92,500 for the release of the goods. This decision was based on the findings that the goods were accompanied by false and bogus documents, and the seizure and demand for security were fully authorized by law.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decisions on all the issues were upheld, and both revisions were dismissed. The Tribunal's findings were based on the discrepancies found during the inspection, the lack of credible evidence provided by the applicant, and the legal provisions under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Rules. The seizure of goods and the demand for security were found to be justified and authorized by law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 806
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the disallowance of exemption claims under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for various assessment years, based on the nature of the transactions as either inter-State sales or deemed sales taxable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The assessee, M/s. Siemens Limited, received work orders split into "supply order" and "service order" from Cominco Binani Zinc Limited (CBZL) for the supply and erection of electrical equipment. The supply order involved manufacturing goods outside Kerala as per purchaser's design and specification, with final inspection by the purchaser before dispatch. The assessee claimed exemption under section 6(2) of the CST Act for sales during inter-State movement.
2. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption claims, treating the transactions as deemed sales under the KGST Act. The authority considered the contracts as indivisible, leading to disallowance of exemption and imposition of tax under the KGST Act. Appeals by the assessee were dismissed, leading to the present case before the High Court.
3. The main contention was whether the supply order constituted an inter-State sale or a sale within the State. The assessee argued that the supply order involved goods manufactured outside Kerala, with title transfer during inter-State movement, qualifying for exemption under the CST Act.
4. The Court referred to previous decisions and held that the supply order should be considered as an inter-State sale, not an indivisible contract. The Court directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter, emphasizing the separate nature of the supply and service orders, along with the transfer of title during inter-State movement.
5. Considering the facts presented and the legal principles involved, the Court concluded that the assessing authority should reevaluate the transactions after hearing both parties, highlighting the distinct nature of the supply order and the applicability of inter-State sale provisions under the CST Act.
6. The Tax Revision Cases (T.R.Cs) were disposed of accordingly, with related orders on certain miscellaneous petitions also dismissed. The Court's decision emphasized the need for a thorough reconsideration by the assessing authority based on the specific details and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.
-
2002 (9) TMI 805
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the nature of the sale transaction by the assessee.
2. Assessment of inter-State sale without physical movement of goods.
3. Application of statutory provisions for assessment of subsequent inter-State sale.
Issue 1: Interpretation of the nature of the sale transaction by the assessee:
The assessee, a registered dealer in Kerala, obtained a purchase order from Tata Tea Limited for the supply of barbed wire to be delivered in Tamil Nadu. The assessee placed a supply order with a Calcutta supplier and claimed exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act for the subsequent inter-State sale to Tata Tea Ltd. The assessing officer proposed disallowance of the exemption, leading the assessee to change their stance to claim the transaction as a local sale in Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal held that the transaction was a local sale, which was deemed incorrect as the assessee's claim was initially based on inter-State sale under section 6(2) supported by the E1 form.
Issue 2: Assessment of inter-State sale without physical movement of goods:
The Tribunal's finding that the transaction was a local sale in Tamil Nadu was challenged. It was argued that inter-State movement of goods is a prerequisite for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. In this case, there was inter-State movement from the Calcutta supplier to the assessee, followed by a subsequent sale to Tata Tea Ltd. The assessing officer rejected the exemption claim under section 6(2) due to the absence of the C form from the buyer. The Tribunal's conclusion of a local sale lacked substance, and the proviso to section 9(1) authorized assessment in Kerala where the C form was obtained by the dealer.
Issue 3: Application of statutory provisions for assessment of subsequent inter-State sale:
The assessment was made in compliance with statutory provisions, as the subsequent sale was assessable in Kerala based on the C form issued by the assessee for the inter-State purchase. The Tribunal's erroneous assumption regarding the nature of the sale transaction led to the incorrect finding of a local sale. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the assessment order confirmed in the first appeal was restored, as the claim under section 6(2) was disallowed, precluding assessment at a concessional rate.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the tax revision case, setting aside the Tribunal's order and reinstating the assessment order confirmed in the first appeal, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the sale transaction and application of statutory provisions for assessment of inter-State sales.
-
2002 (9) TMI 804
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of iron strips and hooks used in job-work for ginning and pressing of cotton.
2. Applicability of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for reassessment.
3. Constitutionality and interpretation of Article 366(29A) post-46th Amendment.
4. Validity of penalty and interest imposed under Sections 16(1)(i) and 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Iron Strips and Hooks:
The non-applicant firm was engaged in the business of ginning and pressing cotton and used iron strips and hooks to fasten the cotton bales. The firm argued that these materials were essential for the job and should not be taxed separately. However, the court held that the transfer of property in these items to the awarder of the contract constituted a sale, making them chargeable to tax. This interpretation was supported by the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982, which included a new clause (29A) in Article 366, defining "tax on the sale or purchase of goods" to include the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract.
2. Applicability of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for Reassessment:
The Assistant Collector issued reassessment orders under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, upon discovering that tax had not been paid on the iron strips and hooks. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) maintained the tax and interest but set aside the penalty. The Tax Board later dismissed the department's appeals and accepted the firm's appeals, questioning the reopening of the case under Section 12. The court ultimately upheld the reassessment, emphasizing that post-46th Amendment, the transfer of property in goods during job-work is presumed to be a sale, thus justifying the reassessment.
3. Constitutionality and Interpretation of Article 366(29A) Post-46th Amendment:
The court examined the impact of the 46th Amendment, which allowed the state to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in works contracts. The amendment was validated by the Supreme Court in cases like Builders Association of India v. Union of India and Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan. The court concluded that the transfer of iron strips and hooks in the course of job-work constituted a sale, making them taxable.
4. Validity of Penalty and Interest Imposed:
For the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the reassessment orders included tax, penalty under Section 16(1)(i), and interest under Section 11B. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty but maintained the tax and interest. The Tax Board dismissed the department's appeals regarding the penalty and accepted the firm's appeals against the tax and interest. The court, however, upheld the reassessment and the imposition of tax and interest, citing the presumption of sale under Article 366(29A) and the validity of the reassessment process.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the taxability of iron strips and hooks used in the job-work for ginning and pressing cotton. The reassessment under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was deemed valid, and the transfer of property in goods during job-work was interpreted as a taxable sale under Article 366(29A) post-46th Amendment. The penalties were set aside, but the tax and interest were upheld.
-
2002 (9) TMI 803
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of trade tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
2. Liability of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Validity of the assessment orders and the remand order.
4. Right to cross-examination and principles of natural justice.
5. Admissibility and consideration of new evidence by the Tribunal.
6. Interpretation and application of section 3-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revision applications.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of trade tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act:
The assessing officer levied a trade tax of Rs. 11,25,000 on the opposite party-dealer, which was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner and remanded for fresh assessment. The Tribunal annulled the order of the Trade Tax Officer, declaring the assessee non-taxable for the year 1992-93. The Tribunal found no material to justify that deliveries were taken by the opposite party-dealer in U.P., and concluded that goods moved directly from the business premises of the dealers to Goa, hence the opposite party-dealer could not be held liable to tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
2. Liability of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act:
The Tribunal upheld the Deputy Commissioner's finding that there was no evidence of inter-State sales by the opposite party-dealer. The goods were sold by the dealer at Meerut and then dispatched to Goa, with the purchaser and seller being the same entity, thus negating the possibility of inter-State sales. The Tribunal confirmed that no liability of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act could be imposed.
3. Validity of the assessment orders and the remand order:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax against the Deputy Commissioner's orders. The Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner should have examined the agreement between dealer "G" and dealer "M" himself rather than remanding the matter. The Tribunal found the remand unnecessary as the assessment orders against the Kanpur and Moradabad dealers indicated that goods were sent directly to Goa, and no liability could be fastened on the opposite party-dealer.
4. Right to cross-examination and principles of natural justice:
The Tribunal observed that the denial of the right to cross-examine the employees of dealer "G" seriously violated principles of natural justice. The adverse material obtained from their statements could not be relied upon without cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that cross-examination was crucial as the employees' statements were the basis for adverse inference against the opposite party-dealer.
5. Admissibility and consideration of new evidence by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal considered documents such as the assessment order of dealer "M" at Goa, challans signed by Rajasthan check-post authorities, and the stock register of dealer "M" at Goa. These documents supported the contention that goods were consigned directly to Goa. The Tribunal justified accepting these documents even if submitted for the first time at the stage of the second appeal, as they were examined in the presence of the departmental representative without objection.
6. Interpretation and application of section 3-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act:
The Tribunal noted that under section 3-D(2) of the Act, the seller of the notified commodity (deshi ghee) was liable to pay tax if sales were made to an unregistered dealer. Since no forms III-C were obtained by the opposite party-dealer, he was treated as an unregistered dealer, making the selling dealer liable for tax. The Tribunal found the assessment order unsustainable as it ignored the provisions of section 3-D(2).
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revision applications:
The High Court emphasized that it does not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal unless they are unsupported by material on record or are perverse. The Tribunal's findings were based on relevant material and were not perverse. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revision applications filed by the Commissioner.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revisions, affirming the Tribunal's findings that the opposite party-dealer was not liable to tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
-
2002 (9) TMI 802
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is any inter-State sale in respect of the materials utilized in retreading and recapping of tyres.
2. The applicability of Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to the transactions.
3. The interpretation of deemed sale and the movement of goods in the context of inter-State trade or commerce.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether there is any inter-State sale in respect of the materials utilized in retreading and recapping of tyres:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1959, entered into contracts with customers outside Tamil Nadu for retreading and recapping tyres. The work was completed in Tamil Nadu, and the retreaded tyres were sent back to the customers outside the state. The authorities assessed the transactions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, treating them as local sales. However, the petitioner contended that the transactions involved inter-State movement of goods, thus constituting inter-State works contracts not liable to tax under the Tamil Nadu Act. The High Court, referencing Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution and relevant case laws, concluded that the movement of goods was an integral part of the contract, making it an inter-State sale.
2. The applicability of Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to the transactions:
Section 3-B of the Act imposes tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts. The authorities taxed the petitioner under this section, but the petitioner argued that the transactions were inter-State works contracts, exempt under Section 3-B(2)(a). The High Court examined the contract terms and the movement of goods, concluding that the transactions were inter-State sales. Therefore, the turnover from these transactions could not be taxed under the Tamil Nadu Act due to the restrictions imposed by Article 286 of the Constitution.
3. The interpretation of deemed sale and the movement of goods in the context of inter-State trade or commerce:
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan, which emphasized that the nature of the contract determines whether a deemed sale is an inter-State sale. The Court found that the contract between the petitioner and the customers involved the movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to other states, making it an inter-State sale. The Court also referenced other relevant cases, such as Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Elgi Tyres & Tread Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which supported the view that movement of goods linked to the contract constitutes an inter-State sale.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the transactions in question were inter-State works contracts exempt from tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The orders of the statutory authorities and the Special Tribunal were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The Court emphasized that the movement of goods in pursuance of the contract made the transactions inter-State sales, not subject to state tax.
-
2002 (9) TMI 801
Issues:
1. Delayed assessment and its legality
2. Legality of "best judgment assessment"
3. Responsibility for interest on delayed assessment
Issue 1: Delayed assessment and its legality:
The judgment addresses the delay in assessing tax despite timely submission of returns by the dealer-assessee. The petitioner argued that the delay in assessment, ranging from one to three years, rendered the entire assessment process invalid. The petitioner contended that as per section 9 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, assessments should be completed promptly after the close of the year. The delay, according to the petitioner, violated this provision. However, the respondents argued that the provision was not mandatory but directory. The court analyzed the language of the Act and concluded that while delay does not automatically invalidate the assessment, the dealer-assessee should not be held responsible for interest on the enhanced tax amount unless the delay is attributable to the dealer.
Issue 2: Legality of "best judgment assessment":
The judgment also delves into the legality of "best judgment assessment" procedures followed by the assessing authority. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority's reliance on "best judgment assessment" without providing a reasonable opportunity for the dealer to present evidence or be heard was improper. The petitioner cited precedents to support the requirement for the assessing authority to allow the dealer to contest the evidence used in the assessment. The court emphasized the importance of issuing notices to dealers before applying "best judgment assessment" and highlighted the necessity of giving dealers a chance to respond to proposed materials. The court found that in the present case, the petitioner was not afforded this opportunity, leading to a violation of procedural fairness.
Issue 3: Responsibility for interest on delayed assessment:
Regarding the responsibility for interest on delayed assessments, the judgment clarified that dealers should not be held liable for interest on the enhanced tax amount assessed during delayed assessments, unless the delay is directly attributable to the dealer. The court emphasized that the assessing authority must act without bias and on a rational basis when conducting "best judgment assessments." The judgment distinguished the present case from a reassessment scenario and held that the principles applied in a different case cited by the respondents were not directly applicable to the current situation. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned assessment orders and subsequent appellate and revisional orders, while allowing the assessing authority to reassess the matter after providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard.
Overall, the judgment addresses issues related to delayed assessments, the legality of "best judgment assessment" procedures, and the responsibility for interest on delayed assessments, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in tax assessments under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.
-
2002 (9) TMI 800
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and legality of section 10A of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, and rule 19A of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993.
2. Alleged favoritism towards the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Guwahati Branch.
3. Compulsory audit based on gross turnover versus taxable turnover.
4. Inclusion of inter-State trade and commerce under section 10A.
5. Duplication of audit requirements under different statutes.
6. Absence of penal provisions for non-compliance with section 10A and rule 19A.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity and legality of section 10A and rule 19A:
The petitioners challenged the validity of section 10A of the Act, which mandates an audit for dealers with a gross turnover exceeding Rs. 40 lakhs, and rule 19A, which specifies the audit certificate format and submission deadline. The court noted that the petitioners did not contest the legislative competence of the State of Assam in enacting these provisions. The court found that the provisions were incorporated after proper examination and were in the greater interest of the State and its revenue.
2. Alleged favoritism towards the Institute of Chartered Accountants:
The petitioners argued that section 10A was introduced to benefit members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Guwahati Branch. The court dismissed this claim, stating that the mere receipt of a representation from the Institute does not invalidate the provisions unless they are beyond the competence of the Legislature or ultra vires the Constitution.
3. Compulsory audit based on gross turnover versus taxable turnover:
The petitioners contended that the audit requirement based on gross turnover was bad in law since the tax under the Act is payable on taxable turnover. The court clarified that the Act's provisions are not limited to dealers liable to pay tax and that compulsory registration and audit based on gross turnover are valid. The court referenced Fernandez's case, which supports the inclusion of gross turnover for registration and audit purposes without affecting tax liability.
4. Inclusion of inter-State trade and commerce under section 10A:
The petitioners argued that section 10A improperly includes sales and purchases under the Central Sales Tax Act, which does not provide for such an audit. The court noted that the State Government is empowered to assess and collect taxes under the Central Sales Tax Act and that including transactions under this Act in the audit requirements does not levy any additional tax. The inclusion is intended to prevent tax evasion and is legally permissible.
5. Duplication of audit requirements under different statutes:
The petitioners highlighted the burden of undergoing multiple audits under different statutes, such as the Income-tax Act and the Sales Tax Act. The court acknowledged this concern and suggested that the audit conducted under the Income-tax Act should suffice for compliance with section 10A, provided additional information required under rule 19A is furnished. This approach avoids unnecessary duplication and aligns with the legislative intent.
6. Absence of penal provisions for non-compliance with section 10A and rule 19A:
The petitioners pointed out the lack of penal provisions for non-compliance with section 10A and rule 19A, rendering these provisions optional. The court agreed that this oversight should be addressed by the respondent authorities but concluded that the absence of penalties does not invalidate the provisions. The court suggested that the authorities consider incorporating penalties similar to those in the Income-tax Act to ensure compliance.
Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions, upholding the validity of section 10A and rule 19A while recommending that the audit requirements under the Income-tax Act be deemed sufficient for compliance with section 10A, provided additional information is submitted. The court also urged the authorities to address the absence of penal provisions to enforce compliance effectively.
-
2002 (9) TMI 799
Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to " not filing an application" within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act?
Held that:- When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28-A cannot be denied. We, accordingly answer question No. l(a) by holding that the dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay would tantamount to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So far as question l(b) is concerned, this is really the same question, as in question l(a) and, therefore, we reiterate that when an application of a land owner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said land owner is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A, if other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.
The receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collectors with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner’s application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the Legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner.
-
2002 (9) TMI 798
Whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 6, 23(2) and 28 thereof stand incorporated in the three State Acts with which we are concerned in these matters or whether the Land Acquisition Act has been merely referred to in the State Acts?
Held that:- In the appeals and special leave petitions before us relating to acquisitions under the Punjab Act, the High Court has granted to the claimants the benefit of additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. We find from the record placed before us that the Awards of the Collector in all these cases were made much before 30th April, 1982 and, therefore, there was no proceeding for acquisition of land pending on 30th April, 1982 since the Collector had made his Awards much earlier. Such being the factual position, the claimants will not be entitled to the benefit of additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and the judgments and orders of the High Court on this aspect of the matter must be set aside.
In these cases as well the Collector had made his Award much before 30th April, 1982 and, therefore, the appellant's claim for additional amount under Section 23(1-A) must be rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 797
Whether the certificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 could not have efficaciously decided such dispute?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned orders. The High Court by a detailed and considered order dated October 11, 1991, quashed the F.I.R. accepting the petitions filed by some of the respondents herein. It appears the said order was not challenged any further. Possibly, having regard to this situation and at this length of time the authorities did not pursue the matter any further as to holding of further enquiry or taking action pursuant to the report of the Vigilance Director General against the respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000. A submission was also made on behalf of some respondents particularly respondents 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 that even no prima facie case was made out against them in the enquiry.
-
2002 (9) TMI 796
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of manipulation in the public issue.
2. Appellant's resignation and association with the public issue.
3. SEBI's authority under section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
4. Appellant's involvement and responsibility in the public issue.
5. Legality of the directions issued by SEBI.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Manipulation in the Public Issue:
The company made a public issue of 25,40,000 equity shares, which opened on 9.5.1995 and closed on 20.5.1995. Allegations included manipulation of promoters' contribution and late subscription. SEBI's investigation revealed that the promoters' contribution was not actually received, and minimum subscription was falsely shown as met by depositing cheques that later bounced. Further, applications for shares worth Rs. 180 lacs were made post-closure of the issue and refunded with interest, indicating manipulation.
2. Appellant's Resignation and Association with the Public Issue:
The Appellant contended that he resigned from the Board on 7.5.1995, before the public issue opened, and thus was not associated with the alleged violations. However, evidence showed that the Appellant actually resigned on 1.8.1995. The Appellant's involvement was further evidenced by his signing of the prospectus and accompanying the managing director to various meetings related to the public issue.
3. SEBI's Authority Under Section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992:
The Appellant argued that SEBI's directions under section 11B, which prohibited him from accessing the capital market and dealing in securities for three years, were beyond the scope of the section. The Tribunal noted that section 11B does not empower SEBI to impose penalties but is preventive and remedial. The Tribunal referenced its decision in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. SEBI, stating that SEBI's directions should be aimed at protecting investors and ensuring the orderly development of the securities market.
4. Appellant's Involvement and Responsibility in the Public Issue:
The Tribunal found that the Appellant was actively involved in the public issue. Despite being designated as a non-executive director, he had significant functional responsibilities, including assisting the company in management, law, and accounts. His involvement was corroborated by his own statements and evidence showing his participation in meetings related to the public issue.
5. Legality of the Directions Issued by SEBI:
The Tribunal concluded that the directions issued by SEBI were punitive rather than preventive or remedial, as they effectively barred the Appellant from accessing the capital market and dealing in securities. The Tribunal held that section 11B does not provide for such penal actions and thus set aside SEBI's directions. However, it clarified that this decision does not prevent SEBI from taking any lawful action against the Appellant in the future.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the public issue was manipulated and that the Appellant was involved in the process. However, it set aside SEBI's directions prohibiting the Appellant from accessing the capital market and dealing in securities, stating that such directions were beyond the scope of section 11B and were punitive in nature. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal allowing SEBI to take any lawful action against the Appellant if necessary.
-
2002 (9) TMI 795
Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of addition on account of excessive shortage
Analysis:
1. Grounds of Appeal: The Department appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 5,47,290 made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive shortage in the rice bran processing account.
2. Assessing Officer's Findings: The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee claimed a shortage of 1.44% in the current year, significantly higher than the 0.47% claimed in the preceding year. The Officer allowed 0.5% as wastage and disallowed the remaining amount, resulting in an addition of Rs. 5,47,290.
3. Contentions Before CIT(A): The assessee argued that they maintained proper books of account, audited and without defects, justifying the claimed wastage. They compared their wastage percentage to a comparable concern's figures for earlier years. The CIT(A) agreed, concluding that the Assessing Officer wrongly applied section 145(1) proviso 2 and deleted the addition.
4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision correct. They observed no defects in the assessee's account books, which were audited and presented for verification. The Assessing Officer failed to provide valid reasons for questioning the claimed wastage or for setting 0.5% as the correct figure. The Tribunal noted that in subsequent years, higher wastage percentages were accepted by the Department, supporting the reasonableness of the 1.44% claimed by the assessee. Thus, they upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 794
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 43,200 on account of income declared in the return filed at Delhi for the assessment year 1996-97.
2. Jurisdictional issue regarding the filing of the return at Delhi instead of Amritsar.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 15,47,610 out of Rs. 26,85,600 on account of undisclosed investment in property construction at Delhi.
4. Directions for reassessment of the remaining Rs. 11,38,990.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 43,200:
The Department challenged the deletion of Rs. 43,200, which was declared in the return filed at Delhi for the assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer (AO) had denied this credit, arguing that the return filed at Delhi was non est since the jurisdiction was with the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Amritsar, later transferred to Inv. Circle-II, Amritsar, under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was residing in Delhi during the assessment year under consideration and was employed by M/s Yogi Pharmacy Ltd., thus the correct jurisdiction was with the ITO, Delhi. Consequently, the return filed at Delhi was deemed valid. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the income of Rs. 43,200 disclosed by the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the return was filed before the search and was accepted by the Department. The Tribunal emphasized that the income was not unearthed during the search proceedings and thus should be excluded from the block period under section 158BB(1)(b).
2. Jurisdictional Issue:
The Department argued that the assessee was not entitled to file the return at Delhi unless jurisdiction was transferred through an order under section 127(2). The CIT(A) concluded that jurisdiction was conferred by orders under section 120, and since the assessee was residing in Delhi and employed there, the ITO, Amritsar, had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), confirming that the return filed at Delhi was valid and the jurisdictional issue was resolved in favor of the assessee.
3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 15,47,610:
The Department contested the deletion of Rs. 15,47,610 out of the total addition of Rs. 26,85,600 related to undisclosed investment in property construction at Delhi. The AO had added Rs. 26,86,600 based on the valuation officer's report, which estimated the cost of construction/acquisition at Rs. 48,15,600.
The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had purchased the property for Rs. 15,60,000 and provided evidence of the previous owner's investment of Rs. 13,70,590 in the construction. The CIT(A) held that the total market value at the time of purchase could not substitute the disclosed consideration for determining actual investment. Thus, the addition of Rs. 15,47,610 was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the valuation by the D.V.O. was merely an opinion and the disclosed investment was based on documentary evidence found during the search. The Tribunal found no merit in the Department's ground and dismissed it.
4. Directions for Reassessment of Rs. 11,38,990:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to reassess the remaining Rs. 11,38,990, instructing the AO to verify the previous owner's investment through necessary evidence and inquiries. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s directions justified, as the AO had made the addition without appreciating the facts and based solely on the D.V.O.'s valuation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues. The deletion of Rs. 43,200 and Rs. 15,47,610 was justified, and the directions for reassessment of Rs. 11,38,990 were appropriate. The jurisdictional issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, validating the return filed at Delhi.
-
2002 (9) TMI 793
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest paid by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of club entrance fees.
3. Deduction under section 80HHC of the Act.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Paid by the Assessee:
The Assessing Officer disallowed interest paid by the assessee, claiming that deposits to directors and relatives were interest-free while the assessee claimed interest on borrowed funds. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating the company diverted its funds to directors interest-free. The tribunal found no tax avoidance device, as directors purchased office premises earlier. The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating the benefit from office premises exceeded potential interest on advanced funds.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Club Entrance Fees:
The Assessing Officer disallowed club entrance fees as capital expenditure, upheld by the CIT(A). The tribunal, citing a Delhi High Court case, ruled the fees were for business expediency, not capital in nature. Thus, the disallowance was deemed incorrect, and the addition was deleted.
Issue 3: Deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act:
Regarding the deduction under section 80HHC for the assessment year 1989-90, the issue was whether freight and insurance should be included in total turnover. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the tribunal directed the exclusion of freight and insurance charges from export turnover and total turnover as they lacked nexus with sales proceeds. The Assessing Officer was instructed to recompute the deduction under section 80HHC accordingly.
In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee on all three issues.
-
2002 (9) TMI 792
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the Commissioner's decision regarding small scale industry benefits for products manufactured by the respondent under the brand name of M/s. Jenburkt Pharmaceuticals. The Tribunal found no evidence that the products were identified under the brand name of Jenburkt, upholding the Commissioner's decision. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 791
Issues:
1. Whether the goods manufactured are excisable and liable to Central Excise duty?
2. Whether the goods in question are marketable and excisable?
3. Whether steel structures like trusses and girders are marketable and excisable?
Issue 1:
The appellant contested the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, arguing that the goods they manufactured for a Railway project were not excisable as they were fabricated in accordance with specifications provided by the Railway Department. They contended that the goods were permanently fixed with civil construction and thus should be considered immovable property. However, the Revenue maintained that the goods in question, such as RCC roof slabs and steel items like Doors, Windows, etc., were distinct products sold in the market and therefore liable for duty. The Tribunal found that the appellant's products were indeed available in the market, leading to the confirmation of the demand and penalty by the adjudicating authority.
Issue 2:
Regarding the marketability and excisability of the goods like Doors, Windows, Glazing Frames, Rolling Shutters, and Louvers of steel, the Tribunal noted that these items were manufactured by the appellants and sold in the market. The Tribunal observed that the goods were not solely made for the Railway project but were also supplied to other buyers, indicating their marketability. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority on the marketability and excisability of these goods.
Issue 3:
In the case of steel structures like trusses and girders, the Tribunal found that there was no specific finding in the impugned order regarding their marketability. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that goods must be marketable to be considered excisable. As the adjudicating authority had not addressed the issue of marketability for these steel structures, the Tribunal set aside the order concerning trusses and girders and remanded the matter for re-consideration. The adjudicating authority was directed to determine the marketability and excisability of steel structures afresh, along with reassessing any associated penalties.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the RCC roof slabs and steel items while remanding the issue of marketability and excisability of steel structures like trusses and girders back to the adjudicating authority for further examination.
-
2002 (9) TMI 790
Issues:
1. Whether M/s. V.S. Polypack can be treated as a dummy unit of the appellant.
2. Whether the turnover of M/s. V.S. Polypack should be included in the value of clearances of the appellant for assessing eligibility under Notification No. 9/99.
3. Whether the provisions of Notification Nos. 83/94 and 84/94 are applicable in this case.
Issue 1:
The appellant contended that M/s. V.S. Polypack cannot be considered a dummy unit, providing detailed explanations of the separate operations, registrations, and financial transactions of the two entities. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the mere common partnership and loan transactions do not justify clubbing the two units. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that under similar circumstances, clubbing was not permissible. The Tribunal concluded that the material presented did not support treating M/s. V.S. Polypack as a dummy unit.
Issue 2:
Regarding the inclusion of M/s. V.S. Polypack's turnover in the appellant's clearances for SSI benefit assessment, the Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 9/99 clauses. It noted that aggregation requires multiple factories or manufacturers, which were absent in this case. With only one factory operated by the appellant, the conditions for aggregating values were not met. The Tribunal found that the provisions of the notification did not justify including M/s. V.S. Polypack's turnover in the appellant's clearances.
Issue 3:
The Revenue relied on Notification Nos. 83/94 and 84/94 to argue for adding the value of goods manufactured by job workers for V.S. Polypack to the appellant's clearances. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the legal fiction in the notifications was not intended for such aggregation. Additionally, it was highlighted that these notifications were inapplicable as V.S. Polypack did not have a factory for further manufacturing, and no undertaking as required by the notifications was given. The Tribunal concluded that Notification Nos. 83/94 and 84/94 did not apply in this case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The judgment clarified the distinct status of M/s. V.S. Polypack, rejected the clubbing of turnovers for SSI benefit assessment, and dismissed the applicability of Notification Nos. 83/94 and 84/94 in the given circumstances.
-
2002 (9) TMI 789
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeals of two Yemen nationals intercepted with US $28,000, seized by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal permitted redemption of foreign exchange on payment of fines, remitting penalties imposed on the appellants. The judgment relied on documentary evidence and modified the confiscation orders.
............
|
9911796707
