|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 202 Records
-
1988 (1) TMI 345
Issues:
Interpretation of sales tax law regarding the taxation of steel pipes purchased and sold within a specific period.
Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was presented with a question regarding the taxation of steel pipes under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The issue revolved around whether the assessee, who had purchased steel pipes from registered dealers and paid sales tax, was liable to pay sales tax again when selling the steel pipes. The Court considered the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, particularly section 14 which lists declared goods, including iron and steel. The Tribunal found that the steel pipes purchased and sold by the assessee fell within the category of declared goods under the Central Act from 1st April, 1973. The Court also examined section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which stipulates that tax on declared goods shall not exceed three per cent of the sale price and shall not be levied at more than one stage.
The Court concluded that since the assessee had already paid tax on the steel pipes when purchasing them from registered dealers, they were not liable to pay tax again when selling the pipes. The application of section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act meant that tax should not be levied at more than one stage for declared goods. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee was not obligated to pay sales tax on the steel pipes sold between 1st April, 1973, and 26th October, 1973, as tax had already been paid at the purchasing stage. Consequently, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the application of the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act to determine the tax liability on the sale of declared goods like steel pipes during the specified period.
-
1988 (1) TMI 344
The petitioner, a hotel owner, is liable to pay sales tax on food sales due to recent amendments in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The Commercial Tax Officer must consider granting exemptions under section 26A(2) for the periods 1978 to 1982. Appellate or revisional authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's application and grant relief accordingly. The court has not adjudicated on specific points, leaving them open. The writ petition is disposed of with no costs.
-
1988 (1) TMI 343
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition challenging the levy of tax on "korra rice" at 4½ per cent, as a notification reducing the tax rate to 2 per cent was effective only from May 1, 1980, not for the assessment year 1979-80.
-
1988 (1) TMI 342
Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions for second appeal under Entry Tax Act
- Applicability of amending Act on assessment period
- Maintainability of second appeal based on timing of assessment and appeal provisions
Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed the issue of whether a second appeal was permissible under the Entry Tax Act for a specific assessment period. The Tribunal had dismissed a second appeal on the grounds that no provision existed for it during the assessment period from May 1, 1976, to October 22, 1976. However, the Court examined the amendments introduced by the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1977, which incorporated provisions from the Sales Tax Act. This amendment, effective from May 1, 1977, allowed for a second appeal under the Entry Tax Act, rendering the initial view of the Tribunal unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the timing of the assessment and the existence of appeal provisions were crucial in determining the maintainability of a second appeal.
In a related case, the Supreme Court's decision in Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi was cited to illustrate the principle that the right to appeal does not vest until a determination is made. Similarly, in Hardeodas Jagannath v. State of Assam, it was established that amended appeal conditions apply to assessments completed after the amendment's enforcement. Drawing from these precedents, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in denying the second appeal based on the assessment period, as the appeal provisions were in place when the assessment and appeal orders were issued. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the maintainability of the second appeal under the Entry Tax Act.
In light of the above analysis, the High Court answered the referred question in the negative, indicating that a second appeal was indeed provided for the relevant assessment period. The decision favored the assessee and went against the department. Notably, no costs were awarded in this judgment. The reference was thus resolved in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of considering the timing of assessments and appeal provisions in determining the maintainability of appeals under tax laws.
-
1988 (1) TMI 341
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled that the assessee was not liable for sales tax on the estimated value of gunny bags used as packing material for sugar sold. The reference was answered in the negative. (Citation: 1988 (1) TMI 341 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)
-
1988 (1) TMI 340
Issues:
Interpretation of M.P. General Sales Tax Act - Opportunity to submit Form C at assessment stage - Acceptance of Form C at appellate stage.
Analysis:
The case involves a reference from the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act regarding the acceptance of Form C in a sales tax assessment for the financial year 1978-79. The primary issue is whether the assessing authority erred in not granting further time to the assessee to produce Form C at the assessment stage. The facts reveal that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to submit Form C but failed to do so, leading to the assessment being completed without it. The appellate authority rejected the submission of Form C during the appeal, prompting the assessee to challenge this decision.
The first contention raised by the assessee was that the assessing authority should have allowed more time to produce Form C based on the proviso to rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules. However, the court disagreed, noting that the assessee had been given two chances to submit the form but failed to do so. Therefore, the assessing authority did not err in handling the situation.
The second argument put forth was that the appellate authority should have accepted Form C during the appeal process. The court, after considering the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and rules, held that Form C must be furnished to the prescribed authority as per section 8(4) of the Act. Previous judgments were cited to support this interpretation, emphasizing that Form C cannot be filed before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to reject Form C at the appellate stage was deemed correct.
In conclusion, the court answered the reference in favor of the department and against the assessee, affirming that Form C should have been submitted to the prescribed authority and not at the appellate stage. The decision highlights the procedural requirements under the Central Sales Tax Act regarding the submission of Form C and the role of the assessing and appellate authorities in this process.
-
1988 (1) TMI 339
Issues:
1. Disallowance of production of XII and XII-A declaration forms at the appellate stage.
2. Interpretation of rules regarding filing of declaration forms before the assessing authority.
Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed the issue of disallowing the production of XII and XII-A declaration forms at the appellate stage following an assessment under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The assessee, a government undertaking engaged in manufacturing heavy electrical equipment, filed declarations in forms XII and XII-A during an appeal against the assessment. However, the appellate authority and the Tribunal rejected these declarations, stating they should have been filed before the assessing authority. The Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court for opinion.
The Tribunal relied on previous court decisions to support its view that declaration forms should only be filed before the assessing authority. However, the High Court distinguished these cases by emphasizing the enabling provision in section 38(5) of the Act, which allows the appellate authority to admit additional evidence, including declaration forms not submitted before the assessing authority. The Court highlighted that the rules do not explicitly restrict filing the documents only before the assessing authority, and the time of assessment includes stages beyond the initial assessment.
The Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the production of XII and XII-A declaration forms at the appellate stage. It emphasized that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to admit such documents in a proper case, especially when the assessee failed to produce them before the assessing authority. The decision on whether to admit declaration forms as evidence should be based on merit, and rejection solely on jurisdictional grounds is not appropriate. The Court answered the referred question in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal's decision was not valid in the circumstances of the case.
-
1988 (1) TMI 338
Issues:
- Whether old aluminium vessels purchased by the appellant are liable to tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957?
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a metal works company, purchased aluminium scrap and old aluminium vessels for manufacturing new aluminium vessels. The assessing authority proposed to levy tax on the purchase turnover of old aluminium vessels, considering them as scrap. The appellant objected, citing exemption for aluminium vessels under the Act.
2. The appellate authority allowed the appellant's contention, but the Commissioner, invoking suo motu revisional power, set aside the appellate order and upheld the assessing authority's decision to tax the purchase turnover of old aluminium vessels. The appellant appealed against this decision.
3. The appellant's counsel argued that old aluminium vessels should not be considered scrap, referencing decisions from Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts regarding the tax liability of materials used in manufacturing. The counsel contended that old aluminium vessels retained their original character and should not be taxed.
4. The High Court disagreed with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the common or commercial meaning of words in tax laws must be considered. It referenced a Gujarat High Court decision where old parts of machinery were considered scrap for reprocessing purposes. The Court held that old aluminium vessels, purchased only for their metal value and not sold as vessels, should be treated as scrap.
5. The Court noted that the appellant admitted the old aluminium vessels were not sold as vessels but for reprocessing. As there was no difference between the aluminium metal pieces and old vessels in terms of usage, the vessels were essentially purchased as scrap for their metal value. Therefore, the Court affirmed that the old aluminium vessels were liable to tax under section 6 of the Sales Tax Act.
6. In conclusion, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, dismissing the appeals and upholding the tax liability on the purchase turnover of old aluminium vessels.
-
1988 (1) TMI 337
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
2. Determination of the petitioner's investment amount.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 30th May/1st June, 1987, which reduced the sales tax exemption period from five years to three years. The petitioner argued that the State Government had made a specific and clear representation through Government Notification No. 8244 dated 30th September, 1982, promising a five-year exemption. The petitioner contended that the State Government was estopped from reducing the exemption period by a subsequent notification (No. 6468 dated 27th August, 1984) under the principle of promissory estoppel.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, where the Court held that industries set up in response to a government notification promising tax exemption for a certain period could invoke promissory estoppel if the government later attempted to reduce the exemption period. The Supreme Court stated, "If in response to such an order and in consideration of the concession made available, promoters of any small-scale concern have set up their industries... they would certainly be entitled to plead the rule of estoppel in their favour when the State... purports to act differently."
The respondent argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable as the subsequent notification was statutory. They cited the Supreme Court decision in Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, which stated that the government could withdraw tax exemptions unless it violated the rule of promissory estoppel.
However, the Court found that the petitioner had indeed set up the industry based on the representation made by the State Government under the earlier notification. Thus, the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied, and the petitioner was entitled to the five-year exemption as initially promised.
2. Determination of the Petitioner's Investment Amount:
The second issue was whether the petitioner's investment in the new unit exceeded Rs. 3 lacs. The petitioner provided a certificate from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Agra, dated 2nd April, 1984, stating that the total investment was Rs. 3,09,005.22. Additionally, a subsequent report by the Joint Director of Industries on 7th March, 1987, confirmed that the investment was more than Rs. 3 lacs.
The impugned order reduced the exemption period based on the finding that the investment was less than Rs. 3 lacs, citing a bill dated 10th March, 1984, for motors purchased by the petitioner. The Court examined the records and found that the petitioner had made the payment for the motors by a bank draft dated 8th March, 1984, and the supplier had received the payment by 9th March, 1984. Thus, the investment was indeed more than Rs. 3 lacs by the relevant date.
Conclusion:
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition was allowed. The order dated 30th May/1st June, 1987, was quashed, and any proceedings pursuant to the order were also quashed. The petitioner was entitled to a five-year exemption from payment of sales tax with effect from 12th March, 1984. There was no order as to costs.
Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 336
The petitioner challenged the vires of a provision in the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The High Court directed the authorities to determine liability afresh and withdraw demand notices. The writ application was disposed of with no costs.
-
1988 (1) TMI 335
Issues:
1. Rejection of account books and resort to best judgment assessment.
2. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding imported goods.
Analysis:
1. The first issue in this sales tax revision pertains to the rejection of the account books of the assessee and the subsequent resort to best judgment assessment for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee, a hardware and machinery parts dealer, declared a gross turnover of Rs. 4,04,972.42 but did not admit any taxable turnover. The assessment was initially made on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,50,000, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The primary contention raised was whether there was sufficient material to reject the account version of the assessee and opt for best judgment assessment. The account books were found defective and not maintained in the regular course of business during various surveys conducted at the business premises. Numerous discrepancies were noted, such as incomplete sales copies, missing serial numbers in bill books, unverified sales and purchases, and inadequate record-keeping practices. The Sales Tax Tribunal concluded that the declared version was rightly rejected due to the substantial irregularities found in the account books. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that accurate accounts are essential for determining taxable turnover under Section 12(1) of the Act. Therefore, the rejection of the account books and the subsequent best judgment assessment were deemed appropriate based on the evidence presented.
2. The second issue raised in the revision concerns the burden of proof on the assessee regarding imported goods. The assessee contended that all goods were locally purchased, and there was no evidence to establish the importation of goods, thereby claiming exemption from tax liability. However, the Sales Tax Tribunal, citing a precedent, rejected this argument. Referring to the decision in Ambala Tobacco House v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., it was reasoned that the assessee's practice of keeping transactions of non-taxable goods outside the books implied purchases from outside Uttar Pradesh. The court concurred with this reasoning, indicating that the omission of transactions from the books suggested purchases made outside the state. Consequently, the second contention regarding the absence of imported goods and tax liability exemption was dismissed. The revision was deemed devoid of merit and subsequently dismissed with costs, upholding the Sales Tax Tribunal's decision on both issues.
-
1988 (1) TMI 334
Issues:
1. Whether a revision lies to the Deputy Commissioner under section 33 and if the writ petition is maintainable.
2. Whether in the case of self-assessment, section 24(3) is automatically attracted, and if the petitioner should have been given an opportunity, and whether the notice is mandatory.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under article 226 challenging the order of the third respondent imposing a penalty under section 24(3) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the penalty was imposed without following proper procedures and without giving an opportunity to pay the tax demanded within the stipulated time. The petitioner argued that the penalty under section 24(3) is not mandatory or automatic, but subject to discretionary exercise by the assessing authority. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support their argument that the imposition of penalty should be based on wilful non-compliance by the assessee. The respondents contended that the levy of penalty was automatic and there was no option to avoid it. The court held that the order imposing the penalty was not in accordance with the law as the assessing authority did not conduct the necessary enquiry as required by rule 18(4) of the Rules. Therefore, the court quashed the order and directed the refund of the penalty amount to the petitioner.
2. The court addressed the issue of whether a revision lies to the Deputy Commissioner under section 33 and if the writ petition was maintainable. The petitioner argued that the remedy available with the third respondent had been exhausted before filing the writ petition. The court found that the writ petition was maintainable under article 226 of the Constitution since the petitioner had exhausted the available remedy. Regarding the second issue, the court considered the petitioner's claim that in cases of self-assessment, section 24(3) should not be automatically attracted, and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity before imposing the penalty. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument and held that the order imposing the penalty was not in accordance with the law as the authorities failed to follow the required procedures. The court quashed the order and directed the refund of the penalty amount to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of giving the aggrieved party an opportunity before imposing penalties.
-
1988 (1) TMI 333
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of a Government company for sales tax arrears incurred by a unit prior to its acquisition.
2. Applicability of the Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982.
3. Interpretation of Section 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, and 21 of the Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982.
4. Relevance of Section 17 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
5. Jurisdiction and maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of a Government Company for Sales Tax Arrears:
The petitioner, a government company, contended that it was not liable to pay sales tax arrears incurred by Amritsar Oil Works before the appointed day (19th October 1982). The court noted that Section 6 of the Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982, specifically states that liabilities incurred before the appointed day are enforceable against the Amritsar Sugar Mills Company and not against the Central Government or the government company.
2. Applicability of the Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982:
The Act came into force on 19th October 1982, and Section 3 provided that on the appointed day, the Amritsar Oil Works and the right, title, and interest of the Amritsar Sugar Mills Company would vest in the Central Government. Section 5(1) of the Act further transferred the property to the petitioner company. The court emphasized that the Act's provisions override any inconsistent laws, as stated in Section 21.
3. Interpretation of Relevant Sections of the Act:
- Section 6: It was clear that the liabilities of the Amritsar Sugar Mills Company in relation to the Amritsar Oil Works for any period before the appointed day are enforceable against the original company and not the Central Government or the petitioner.
- Section 7: The Central Government paid a specific amount for the transfer and vesting of the Amritsar Oil Works, which was to be used by the Commissioner of Payments to satisfy various claims, including taxes.
- Section 14: Appointment of a Commissioner of Payments to disburse amounts payable under Section 7.
- Section 16: Prioritization of claims, including taxes, to be paid from the amount deposited by the Central Government.
- Section 17: Claims against the Amritsar Sugar Mills Company must be made to the Commissioner within a specified period.
- Section 21: The Act's provisions have an overriding effect over any inconsistent laws.
4. Relevance of Section 17 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948:
The respondents argued that under Section 17 of the Punjab Act, the petitioner, as the transferee, was liable for the sales tax dues. However, the court held that Section 21 of the Amritsar Oil Works Act overrides this provision, and the liabilities incurred before the appointed day must be recovered from the Commissioner of Payments.
5. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing that the petitioner should have used alternative remedies under the Punjab Act and that appeals were pending before statutory authorities. The court dismissed these objections, stating that the statutory remedies pertained to the quantum of sales tax, not the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount. The court also noted that a petition pending in the Supreme Court related to the constitutional validity of a different section of the Punjab Act and did not impede the current writ petitions.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the demand notices and recovery certificates. It held that the respondents could not enforce the sales tax liability against the petitioner and must approach the Commissioner of Payments for recovery. The court emphasized that the liability incurred before the appointed day was not enforceable against the petitioner due to the overriding provisions of the Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982.
-
1988 (1) TMI 332
Issues:
1. Whether writ of prohibition can be issued against the imposition of sales tax on casuarina cut by the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for in the writ petitions?
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two writ petitions filed seeking a writ of prohibition against the imposition of sales tax on casuarina cut by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that casuarina does not fall under the definition of "timber" as per the contract with the Forest Department, and thus, should not be taxed as timber. The Government Advocate contended that casuarina is used for construction purposes, making it taxable. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not exhaust all remedies before approaching the High Court directly, stating that the matter should have been raised before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer first. The court dismissed the writ petitions, highlighting that extraordinary jurisdiction can only be invoked after exhausting all available remedies under the law.
2. The court held that the petitioner's failure to raise the issue before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer rendered the writ petitions not maintainable. It stressed that all remedies under the law must be exhausted before seeking relief through a writ of prohibition. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have pursued the available remedies before approaching the High Court directly. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petitions without delving into the merits of the case, indicating that the petitioner must seek redress through the appropriate forums before seeking relief through a writ petition. The court did not award any costs in the matter, underscoring the importance of following the proper legal procedures before seeking extraordinary relief through writ petitions.
-
1988 (1) TMI 331
Issues:
1. Proper application of Government orders and policy abstracts in tax assessment for specific years.
2. Compliance with constitutional provisions and relevant tax laws in the assessment of iron and steel for tax purposes.
3. Allegations of discrimination and denial of liberty to petitioners during assessment proceedings.
4. Consideration of waiver provisions and non-collection of sales tax by dealers.
5. Assessment of machinery sales and objections raised by dealers.
6. Judicial review of assessment orders and availability of revisional remedies.
7. Stay on tax collection and jurisdiction of Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the proper application of Government orders and policy abstracts during tax assessment for the years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70. The petitioners argued that the authorities had not followed the prescribed procedures outlined in various Government orders and policy abstracts, leading to alleged discrimination. The court examined the contentions in light of relevant legal provisions and previous judicial decisions, emphasizing the need for compliance with constitutional provisions and tax laws in the assessment of iron and steel for tax purposes.
2. The court considered the applicability of Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India, relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and the Central Sales Tax Act in determining the tax liability related to iron and steel transactions. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting tax laws in accordance with judicial precedents and statutory provisions to ensure a fair and consistent assessment process.
3. Addressing the allegations of discrimination and denial of liberty during assessment proceedings, the court reviewed the petitioners' claims of non-compliance with Government orders and waiver provisions. The judgment emphasized the need for dealers to substantiate their objections and participate in the assessment process to avoid adverse findings. The court also noted the availability of revisional remedies for aggrieved parties to challenge assessment orders.
4. The judgment discussed the issue of waiver provisions and non-collection of sales tax by dealers, emphasizing the dealers' responsibility to comply with tax laws and make necessary provisions for future liabilities. The court rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding the non-application of waiver provisions, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in tax assessments.
5. Regarding the assessment of machinery sales and objections raised by dealers, the court examined the dealers' failure to substantiate their objections, leading to the rejection of their claims. The judgment underscored the need for dealers to present evidence and legal arguments to support their objections during assessment proceedings.
6. The court discussed the judicial review of assessment orders and the availability of revisional remedies for parties dissatisfied with the assessment outcomes. The judgment highlighted the importance of following proper procedures and availing revisional remedies to address any grievances related to tax assessments.
7. Finally, the judgment addressed the issue of stay on tax collection and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court clarified that parties seeking a stay on tax collection should approach the appropriate forum, i.e., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, for the remedy. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the jurisdiction and discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in granting stays on tax collection.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them devoid of merits and not substantiated by the petitioners' arguments. The judgment directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeals promptly and highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and availing revisional remedies in tax assessment matters.
-
1988 (1) TMI 330
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of a single Member Bench deciding an appeal involving disputed tax exceeding Rs. 10,000.
2. Legality of reassessment order u/s 21 based on change of opinion.
Summary:
Issue 1: Legality of a Single Member Bench Deciding the Appeal
The first issue questioned whether the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, was legally justified to decide an appeal involving disputed tax exceeding Rs. 10,000 by a single Member Bench instead of a two Members' Bench. Section 10(10)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act mandates that appeals involving tax disputes over Rs. 10,000 should be heard by a Bench of two Members. However, the court clarified that the critical factor is the amount of tax "in dispute." In this case, the disputed tax was less than Rs. 10,000 after deducting the admitted liability. Consequently, the appeal was rightly tried by a single Member of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel conceded this point, and the first question was decided accordingly.
Issue 2: Legality of Reassessment Order u/s 21 Based on Change of Opinion
The second issue addressed whether the reassessment order u/s 21, which corrected an inadvertent mistake or omission by the assessing authority, was legally sustainable. The reassessment was initiated because the Sales Tax Officer reconsidered the classification of saccharin, which was initially taxed at 3.5% as an unclassified commodity but later reassessed at 7% as a chemical due to the addition of soda-bi-carb in its manufacturing process.
The court examined whether the assessing authority had "reason to believe" that the turnover had escaped assessment or was under-assessed. It was found that the original assessment had already considered the manufacturing process, including the addition of soda-bi-carb. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than new material facts. The court cited several precedents, emphasizing that reassessment u/s 21 cannot be justified on mere change of opinion without any new objective material.
The court concluded that the reassessment proceedings were an attempt to circumvent the original view, which had become final. Therefore, the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal annulling the reassessment proceedings was upheld. The revision was dismissed with costs.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, affirming that the single Member Bench was justified in deciding the appeal and that the reassessment order u/s 21 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion rather than new material facts.
-
1988 (1) TMI 321
Coverage of the notification dated 31st March, 1982, granting exemption from tax in respect of "sale of equipments generating or utilising renewable source of energy" including equipments specified therein arises in this appeal
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The meaning and content of the expression "renewable sources of energy" in the context of the equipment in question is an important question which has arisen. In view of the fact that additional material has been brought on record and this is a question which will arise from year to year in respect of a large number of assessees, we think that the matter requires fuller consideration afresh thus remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
-
1988 (1) TMI 312
Whether section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time that the provision cast a liability to tax only on a registered dealer and not an unregistered dealer like the assessee?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Clause (b) of section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is operative only from September 7, 1976. The present case is, therefore, governed by the earlier provision and the decision of this Court in Kasturi Lal's case [1987 (8) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
Assuming the correctness of the contention that a purely procedural amendment should ordinarily be construed to be retrospective, we are unable to agree that the present amendment is of such nature. The decision of this Court in Kasturi Lal's case [supra] had held that an unregistered dealer is not taxable under the proviso. The amendment changes this position and imposes a substantive liability on such a dealer. It is also one which confers jurisdiction on an officer in a particular State to levy a tax which he otherwise cannot. It is thus a substantive provision. That apart, even the question whether a charge to tax can be imposed in one State or another is not a mere question of venue. It may have an impact on the rate of tax in certain cases and it also regulates the rights inter se of States to levy taxes on such inter-State sales. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that the amendment should be treated as purely procedural and hence necessarily retrospective.
-
1988 (1) TMI 303
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transfer of 3,417 and 93 shares.
2. Compliance with the Articles of Association.
3. Validity of the increase in share capital and allotment of 17,666 shares.
4. Allegations of mala fide intentions and conflict of interest.
5. Delay, acquiescence, and estoppel claims.
6. Remedies and reliefs sought by the petitioners.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Transfer of 3,417 and 93 Shares:
The petitioners challenged the transfer of 3,417 shares and 93 shares by respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to respondents Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14. The court found that the transfer forms were not signed by all executors, specifically the first petitioner, violating section 108 of the Companies Act. The court held that the transfer was illegal and void, as the forms were not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act.
2. Compliance with the Articles of Association:
Articles 57A to 65 of the company's Articles of Association govern the transfer of shares. Article 57A provides a right of pre-emption to the first petitioner. The court noted that the respondents failed to comply with these provisions, particularly by not allowing the second petitioner to exercise her right to purchase the shares. The court concluded that the sale of shares was in contravention of the Articles and, therefore, invalid.
3. Validity of the Increase in Share Capital and Allotment of 17,666 Shares:
The petitioners also challenged the increase in share capital and the subsequent allotment of 17,666 shares to respondents Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16. The court found that the increase in share capital and allotment were done in a manner that was not in the best interest of the company and were intended to corner the shares. The court held that the issuance and allotment of these shares were illegal and could not be sustained.
4. Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions and Conflict of Interest:
The court observed that respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 had entered into an understanding with respondent No. 5 to transfer controlling interest in the company. This was done without considering the interest of the company and with the intention of bypassing the Articles of Association. The court concluded that the actions of the respondents were mala fide and not in the best interest of the company.
5. Delay, Acquiescence, and Estoppel Claims:
Respondents argued that the petitioners had acquiesced to the transfer and allotment of shares by participating in board meetings and not raising timely objections. The court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioners had consistently protested against the actions of the respondents and had filed a suit challenging the transfers. The court held that there was no delay, acquiescence, or estoppel that would bar the petitioners from seeking relief.
6. Remedies and Reliefs Sought by the Petitioners:
The court ordered the rectification of the share register to reflect the invalidity of the transfer of 3,417 and 93 shares and the allotment of 17,666 shares. The court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 80,73,000 within six weeks as a condition for the order to become operative. The court also ordered the respondents to comply with the rectification and to return the 17,666 shares to the company. The petitioners were granted the reliefs sought, subject to the deposit of the specified amount.
Conclusion:
The court found that the transfer of 3,417 and 93 shares and the allotment of 17,666 shares were illegal and void. The actions of the respondents were held to be mala fide and not in compliance with the Articles of Association. The court ordered rectification of the share register and directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 80,73,000 to make the order operative. The petitioners' rights were upheld, and the respondents were directed to comply with the court's orders.
-
1988 (1) TMI 294
The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition by accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 10 against the order issuing process under section 111(2) read with section 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the main ingredients of the offence were not proven by the complainant in the sworn statement, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and quashing of the proceedings.
........
|
9911796707
