Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1983 1983 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 256 Records

• 1983 (9) TMI 273
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of the time limit for filing a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  2. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 449/76-Cus., dated 16-12-1976 to imported goods.
  3. Classification of the appellants as an individual or a company for the purpose of the time limit under Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of the time limit for filing a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  The case involved a Revision Application against an order rejecting a refund claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants imported Nickel and Nickel Alloy under Chapter 75 of the Customs Tariff, unaware of an exemption Notification. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund application as time-barred under a 6-month limitation, upheld by the Appellate Collector. The appellant argued for a 1-year limitation under Section 27(1)(a) for personal use imports. However, the Tribunal clarified that the limitation for the appellants was 6 months under Section 27(1)(b) and upheld the lower authorities' orders.
  
  Issue 2: Applicability of exemption Notification No. 449/76-Cus., dated 16-12-1976 to imported goods.
  The Tribunal noted that the imported goods fell under Chapter 75 and were eligible for partial exemption under Notification No. 449/76-Cus., dated 16-12-1976. Despite the lack of specific details in the records, the Tribunal confirmed that the goods were assessed without considering the exemption, leading to the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the 6-month time limit for such claims, irrespective of the legal authority of the assessment.
  
  Issue 3: Classification of the appellants as an individual or a company for the purpose of the time limit under Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  The appellants contended that being importers for personal use, they should be considered individuals under Section 27(1)(a) for a 1-year limitation. However, the Tribunal clarified that the term "any individual for his personal use" referred to natural persons, not juristic entities like companies. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the time limit should be 3 years under the General Law of Limitation, emphasizing the statutory 6-month limit under Section 27(1)(b) for refund claims.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders, dismissing the appeal due to the appellants' failure to comply with the 6-month time limit for filing the refund claim under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions and the distinction between individuals and companies for such legal purposes.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 272
  
  Issues:
  1. Classification of Cloth Drilling Machine and Cloth Cutting Machine under the Customs Tariff Act.
  2. Rejection of reassessment application by the Asst. Collector of Customs and the Collector of Customs (Appeal).
  3. Applicability of exemption Notifications No. 41 and 46 dated 1-3-1978.
  4. Benefit of Notification No. 41-Cus. for automatic machines.
  5. Benefit of Notification No. 46-Cus. for Cloth Cutting Machine.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the classification of a Cloth Drilling Machine and a Cloth Cutting Machine under the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants imported these machines and sought reassessment under different headings. The Asst. Collector of Customs, Bombay, rejected the claim, a decision upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bombay. The appellants contended that the Cloth Drilling Machine was incorrectly classified under Heading 82.05 as tools, emphasizing its importance in the Garments industry. They also argued for the Cloth Cutting Machine's classification under Heading 84.40(1) without countervailing duty, citing exemption Notifications No. 41 and 46 dated 1-3-1978.
  
  During the hearing, no representation was made for the appellants, while the respondent Collector was represented by Shri M. Chatterjee. The Tribunal noted the appellants' request for a hearing in Bombay, which was not feasible due to jurisdictional reasons. The appellants were given the option to submit written arguments, but none were received. In the absence of the appellants, Shri Chatterjee defended the lower authorities' orders.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the classification of the Cloth Drilling Machine under Heading 82.05, which covers power-operated hand tools for drilling. The Appellate Collector of Customs affirmed the correct assessment under this heading, determining it as a tool for working by hand with a self-contained electric motor. Regarding the Cloth Cutting Machine, the Tribunal found no evidence to dispute the Appellate Collector's decision that it did not fall under Heading 84.40(1) as a fabric cutting machine.
  
  The Tribunal further examined the applicability of exemption Notifications No. 41 and 46 dated 1-3-1978. Notification No. 41-Cus. applied to automatic machines, which the lower authorities found the machine in question did not qualify as. As for Notification No. 46-Cus., the Tribunal noted insufficient information provided by the appellants regarding the specific model of the Cloth Cutting Machine, leading to the dismissal of the claim due to lack of supporting material.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' classification of the machines and the inapplicability of the exemption notifications based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 271
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff notifications
  - Retrospective effect of Notification No. 168/72-C.E.
  - Liability of appellants for payment of duty
  
  Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff notifications:
  The appellants argued that the Department was not justified in applying Notification No. 168/72-C.E. retrospectively. They contended that they should only be liable to pay the duty at the rate in force on the date of removal of the yarn for captive consumption. They relied on a previous appeal where a similar principle was acknowledged by the Tribunal. The appellants' position was that the duty had already been paid at the applicable rate during removal for captive consumption, and no further liability should be imposed on them.
  
  Retrospective effect of Notification No. 168/72-C.E.:
  The appellants highlighted that they had removed the yarn for captive consumption before the enforcement of Notification No. 168/72-C.E., which introduced higher duty rates. They argued that the new rates should not be applied retrospectively to the yarn already consumed in weaving fabrics. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that the rates prescribed in the notification could not be retroactively applied to yarn that had been legitimately removed and consumed before the notification came into effect.
  
  Liability of appellants for payment of duty:
  The Tribunal carefully considered the circumstances and ruled in favor of the appellants. They noted that the yarn had been lawfully removed for captive consumption in weaving fabrics, and as per Rule 9A, the duty rate applicable on the date of removal should be enforced. Since the duty had already been paid at that rate, the appellants were not liable for any additional duty. The Tribunal upheld the appellants' argument that their liability was limited to the duty payable based on the rates specified in the relevant notifications, namely No. 63/72-C.E. and No. 64/72-C.E. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted relief to the appellants, absolving them from further duty payment obligations.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 270
  

  Whether the complainant satisfies the eligibility criteria?

  Held that:- In the absence of a specific qualification, if the person complaining has a subsisting interest in the protection of the registered trade mark, his complaint cannot be rejected on the ground that he had no cause of action nor sufficient subsisting interest to file the complaint. M/s Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, a partnership firm is the registered owner of trade marks, falsification and infringement of which is complained by the present complainant, who is not only a dealer in these beedies manufactured and sold by the registered owner of the trade marks, but he is also the constituted attorney of the owners of the registered trade mark. To say that the owner of the registered trade mark can alone file the complaint is contrary to the provisions of the statute and commonsense and reason. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint at the threshold on the ground that the present appellant has no cause of action to file the complaint is utterly unsustainable and must be quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 269
  
  Issues:
  - Whether the goods purchased and exported by the assessees are considered two different articles for tax exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the question of whether the goods purchased and exported by the assessees were distinct articles for tax exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessees bought frog legs and claimed exemption, but the assessing authority denied it as the goods were not directly exported. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision, stating the goods were moved to another state before export. The assessees appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing the goods were exported through their agents. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, considering them the last purchasers in Tamil Nadu.
  
  The Revenue filed an enhancement petition, claiming the purchased and exported frog legs were different goods. The Tribunal rejected this, leading the Revenue to appeal. The Government Pleader argued that the process of cutting, cleaning, and freezing the frog legs constituted a change, citing relevant case law. However, the Court emphasized that for a change to be significant, the goods must become a commercially different commodity. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that processing must result in a new and distinct product to be considered a different commodity.
  
  The Court concluded that the process of cutting, cleaning, and freezing did not transform the frog legs into a commercially different product. Citing precedent, the Court held that the goods retained their original character even after processing. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and no interference was warranted. Consequently, the tax case was dismissed.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 268
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of service of notice for assessment proceedings.
  2. Claim for deduction of declared goods in assessment.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged an ex parte assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer (S.T.O.) after the firm's registration was cancelled. The petitioner contended that the notice served on one of the partners was improper, leading to a lack of jurisdiction in the assessment proceedings. The petitioner relied on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court regarding the necessity of proper notice. The High Court observed that the partner who received the notice had previously acted on behalf of the firm before tax authorities. The Court held that the partner could be considered an "agent" of the firm as per the Sales Tax Rules, justifying the service of notice on him. Thus, the Court found the service of notice to be proper based on the partner's role as an agent.
  
  2. The petitioner claimed a deduction for the sale of declared goods, which was disallowed during assessment for sales tax purposes. The S.T.O. allowed the deduction for turnover tax but disallowed it for sales tax assessment without providing a subsequent opportunity for the petitioner to show cause against the rejection. The Court noted that principles of natural justice may require issuing a notice before a best judgment assessment. It was emphasized that the petitioner should have been given a chance to be heard before rejecting the deduction claimed. The Court cited precedents emphasizing the need for a reasonable nexus to available material in best judgment assessments. As the S.T.O. did not adequately justify the disallowance of the deduction, the Court held the assessment of sales tax to be unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the assessment orders and directing the petitioner to be given an opportunity to present their case regarding the deduction claimed.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the petitioner, primarily on the grounds of proper service of notice and the necessity of providing an opportunity for the petitioner to contest the disallowed deduction during assessment proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring a reasonable basis for best judgment assessments in tax matters.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 267
  
  Issues:
  - Whether additional tax collected by the petitioner should be included in the gross turnover for the purpose of computing sales tax liability.
  - Whether the amount of additional tax collected should be deductible from the taxable turnover under the Bihar Sales Tax Act.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioner, a government company, collected additional tax from purchasers but did not include it in the gross turnover for the year 1975-76. The assessing officer held that the additional tax formed part of the gross turnover and was not deductible from the taxable turnover for computing sales tax liability. The appellate and revisional orders affirmed this decision, leading to the petitioner filing a writ application explaining the delay in approaching the Commercial Taxes Tribunal.
  
  2. The petitioner raised two contentions: first, that the additional tax collected should not be included in the gross turnover, and second, that the amount of additional tax should be deducted from the taxable turnover under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The court first addressed the second contention, citing relevant sections of the Act, including section 3B authorizing additional tax on the gross turnover and section 7 detailing the taxable turnover for general and special sales tax.
  
  3. The State contended that only sales tax collected as general or special sales tax was deductible under section 7 of the Act, excluding additional tax. However, the court interpreted the definition of tax under section 2(s) as inclusive of all amounts payable as tax under the Act, including additional tax. It emphasized that a dealer could collect additional tax from purchasers as part of the sales tax liability.
  
  4. The court clarified that for computing taxable turnover, the sales tax actually collected, including additional tax, should be deductible. It highlighted that if a dealer collected additional tax as a tax, it should be considered for deduction along with general or special sales tax. The court's interpretation aligned with the scheme of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.
  
  5. Addressing the first contention, the court acknowledged the lack of direct precedents from the High Court but opined that the gross turnover under the Act included sales tax amounts, including additional tax, realized from customers. Despite the petitioner's delay in approaching the Tribunal, the court deemed the legal controversy significant and granted relief by quashing the orders that denied the deduction of additional sales tax from the gross turnover. The case was remitted for redetermination of the petitioner's liability.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 266
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal under section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the dismissal of a writ petition.
  - Correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge regarding interference under article 226 of the Constitution.
  - Meaning of packing material in relation to notice issued under section 12.
  - Availability of objections and appeal mechanisms under the Sales Tax Act.
  - Interpretation of section 12(1) of the Act based on previous judgments.
  - Consideration of alternate remedy and pending reference in a similar case.
  - Request for direction to the assessing authority to act according to a previous judgment.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the High Court involved challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge who dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. The main issue raised was the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge regarding the interference of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge held that the assessing authority had jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 12, and the objections could be raised before the authority with the availability of appeal and revision mechanisms under the Sales Tax Act.
  
  The learned single Judge relied on the judgment in Bhanwarlal Binjaram's case to emphasize the existence of a complete machinery and hierarchy of Tribunals for addressing such questions. The interpretation of section 12(1) of the Act was discussed based on previous judgments, highlighting the wide powers of the assessing authority. The Judge also considered the fact that the same assessee had previously filed an appeal and was granted relief, indicating the availability of remedies within the existing legal framework.
  
  Regarding the request for a direction to the assessing authority to act according to a previous judgment of the Deputy Commissioner, the Court held that unless the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner is reversed or stayed, the original assessing authorities are bound to respect it. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting decisions of higher authorities in the hierarchy.
  
  Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The Court agreed with the learned single Judge's reasoning that there was no lack of jurisdiction in the assessing authority's actions and that the objections could be addressed through the available mechanisms under the Sales Tax Act. The Court highlighted the self-imposed restriction under article 226 of the Constitution regarding the availability of alternate remedies, indicating that interference should be limited to extraordinary circumstances showing lack or excess of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 265
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Whether the contract for the construction and supply of a harbour ferry constitutes a contract for sale or a contract for work and labour.
  
  Summary of Judgment
  
  Issue: Nature of Contract - Sale vs. Work and Labour
  
  The sole, but important question is whether a contract for construction and supply of harbour ferry, constitutes a contract for sale or a contract for work and labour. The facts reveal that the assessee-petitioner entered into an agreement with the Government of India for the "construction and supply of harbour ferry" at a cost of Rs. 30,60,000 with specific terms including delivery within 18 months, stage payments, and comprehensive insurance.
  
  The court referred to multiple precedents to discern the nature of the contract:
  - In Hindustan Ship Yard Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, it was held that the contract was for work and labour as the ship was constructed under the owner's supervision and specifications.
  - In State of Gujarat v. Kailash Engineering Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the property in coach bodies vested in the Railway even during construction, making it a works contract.
  - In Union of India v. Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the contract was for the sale of wagons as the company owned the materials used for construction.
  - In Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the contract for fabrication, supply, and installation of rolling shutters was considered a work and labour contract as the shutters came into existence only after installation.
  - In Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the contract for fabrication and erection of a crane was held to be a work and labour contract due to the high degree of skill required for erection.
  
  The emerging guidelines for distinguishing between a contract for sale and a contract for work and labour are:
  1. The essence of the contract or the reality of the transaction as a whole.
  2. If the thing to be delivered has any individual existence before delivery, it is a sale.
  3. If the main object is the transfer of property in a thing in which the buyer had no previous property, it is a sale.
  4. Where the main object of work is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, it is a contract for work and labour.
  5. If the bulk of the material used belongs to the manufacturer, it points towards a sale.
  6. Contracts requiring both work and materials can be classified into three types, with the first type being a composite contract for sale and work, the second type being purely for work and labour, and the third type being a contract for sale with incidental work.
  
  In the present case, the court found that the dominant factor was the manufacture or fabrication of the vessel, not the erection or installation of the end-product. The raw materials belonged to the builder, and the vessel was constructed under the builder's supervision, with the end-product being delivered to the buyer. The contract was thus held to be one for sale, not for work and labour.
  
  The court concluded that the main object of the contract was the transfer of property in the ferry from the builder to the buyer for a price. The totality and cumulative effect of the circumstances constituted the contract as a sale. The revision was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision. No costs were awarded, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 264
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of speedometers as either "automobile spare parts" or "accessories" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
  2. Applicability of the reduced tax rate of 13% versus the standard rate of 15% for speedometers sold by the petitioners.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of Speedometers
  The core issue was whether speedometers should be classified as "automobile spare parts" or "accessories." The petitioners argued that speedometers should be considered spare parts, citing Notification No. 86 of 1970, which reduced the tax rate to 13% for automobile spare parts. They relied on the clarification issued by the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Madras, and several judicial decisions, including Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Kohinoor India Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 45 STC 332 and others, to support their contention.
  
  On the other hand, the department contended that speedometers are not included in the expression "automobile spare parts" in the notification and should be classified as accessories. They argued that a speedometer is not essential for the operation of an automobile, although it adds to the convenience or effectiveness of the vehicle.
  
  The court examined item 3 of the First Schedule to the Act, which levies a 15% tax on parts and accessories of motor vehicles. The notification reduced the tax rate to 13% for automobile spare parts but did not explicitly include speedometers. The court concluded that a speedometer is a device that indicates the speed of a vehicle, which is not an integral, essential, or indispensable part of the vehicle. The court noted that a vehicle can operate without a speedometer, unlike tyres or batteries, which are essential.
  
  The court found that the language of the notification and the inclusion of essential items like batteries and tyres indicated that "automobile spare parts" referred to vital and indispensable parts of the vehicle. Therefore, the court held that a speedometer is an accessory and not a spare part.
  
  Issue 2: Applicability of Reduced Tax Rate
  The petitioners sought the benefit of the reduced tax rate of 13%, arguing that speedometers should fall within the scope of "automobile spare parts" as per the notification. They cited various judicial decisions to support their claim.
  
  However, the court referred to several decisions, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kores (India) Ltd. [1977] 39 STC 8 (SC) and N.A.V. Naidu v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [1970] 25 STC 381, which helped clarify the distinction between accessories and spare parts. The court observed that even though vehicles are sold with speedometers, they are not essential parts of the vehicle, similar to how typewriter ribbons are considered accessories and not parts of typewriters.
  
  The court also referred to Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1976] 37 STC 378 (SC), which explained that accessories are supplementary devices that add to the convenience or effectiveness of the main machinery but are not essential.
  
  Based on these observations, the court concluded that speedometers are accessories and not spare parts. Therefore, the sales turnover of speedometers should be assessed at the standard tax rate of 15%, not the reduced rate of 13%.
  
  Conclusion
  The court upheld the classification of speedometers as accessories rather than automobile spare parts. Consequently, the petitioners' sales turnover of speedometers should be taxed at 15%, as per the standard rate, and not at the reduced rate of 13%. The tax revision case was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 263
  
  Issues:
  1. Levy of additional sales tax on the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76.
  2. Whether the assessee, acting as an agent for principals with turnovers less than Rs. 10,00,000, is liable to pay additional sales tax.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of the levy of additional sales tax on the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee, engaged in the business of beedi leaves, declared a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 10,08,620.79, which was later determined to be Rs. 10,08,622 by the assessing authority. An additional tax of Rs. 4035 was levied on the assessee, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the levy of additional tax on the assessee, dismissing their appeal. The assessee then approached the High Court challenging the Tribunal's decision.
  
  2. The crucial issue was whether the assessee, acting as an agent for principals with turnovers less than Rs. 10,00,000, is liable to pay additional sales tax. The relevant provision, section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, stipulated that if a dealer's total turnover exceeds Rs. 10,00,000, additional tax at the rate of ten per cent of the tax payable for that year shall be levied. The Court emphasized that the liability to pay additional sales tax is imposed on the dealer in whose hands the sales tax had been levied under the principal Act. The Court clarified that once the assessee is assessed to sales tax under the principal Act, they automatically become liable to pay additional tax as per the specific provision of section 2(1) of the Additional Sales Tax Act. The Court highlighted that the focus should be on whether the person on whom additional tax is sought to be levied had sales tax assessed on them and whether their total turnover exceeds Rs. 10,00,000. In this case, the assessee's total turnover exceeded the threshold amount, making them liable for additional tax regardless of the turnover of their principals.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax case, concurring with the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that the levy of additional tax is automatic once the original assessment to sales tax has been made on a person with a turnover exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, without the need to distinguish between the turnover of the assessee and their principals.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 262
  
  The assessee filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requesting the Tribunal to refer questions of law. The main issue was the Tribunal's use of a 7% profit rate in the best judgment assessment. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that past assessments were a better basis for determining profits. The application was rejected, and costs of Rs. 125 were imposed.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 261
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Assessment of the petitioner-firms under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1973-74.
  2. Whether the collar lining sold by the petitioners was a variety of cotton fabric exempt from tax.
  3. Legality of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Assessment of the petitioner-firms under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1973-74
  The petitioners, M/s. Palco Lining Company and M/s. K.P. Traders, are partnership firms engaged in purchasing and selling collar lining, which they claim is cotton fabric and thus exempt from tax. The Sales Tax Officer initially accepted their account books and found the purchases and sales duly vouched. He concluded that the collar lining sold was cotton fabric, rendering the turnover exempt from tax through an order dated 30th June, 1976.
  
  Issue 2: Whether the collar lining sold by the petitioners was a variety of cotton fabric exempt from tax
  The Sales Tax Officer later issued a notice u/s 21 of the Act, suggesting that some turnover had escaped assessment. The basis for this notice was a statement by partners of the petitioners admitting that the sold items were collars made out of cloth but no tax had been paid on these sales. The petitioners argued that what was sold was not "collar" but two pieces of cotton cloth affixed together, known as collar lining, which tailors used to make collars. They contended that the assessing authority had already examined and concluded that the article sold was cotton fabric and thus exempt from tax. The court noted that reassessment u/s 21 is not permissible merely due to a change of opinion by the assessing authority.
  
  Issue 3: Legality of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act
  The court examined whether the collar lining would attract tax liability as a separate commercial commodity. It referred to the definition of fabric and concluded that collar lining, being made out of cotton yarn, does not lose its identity as cotton fabric merely by being cut and affixed. The court found support from the Supreme Court's decision in Maharaja Book Depot v. State of Gujarat, which held that exercise books made out of paper did not lose their identity as paper. Similarly, collar lining does not cease to be cotton fabric and is entitled to exemption from tax. The court also referenced decisions from other High Courts supporting this view.
  
  The court rejected the department's argument that the matter should be left for determination by the departmental authorities, citing the Supreme Court's stance in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan. It concluded that reassessment proceedings based on a mere change of opinion are not permissible. The court allowed the petitions, quashed the notices issued u/s 21, and awarded costs to the petitioners.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 260
  
  Issues:
  1. Classification of brass rivets for taxation under specific notifications.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to the classification of brass rivets for taxation purposes under specific notifications. Initially, the Additional judge (Revisions) Sales Tax determined that the brass rivets were to be taxed as brasswares under a particular notification. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Tribunal rejected an application by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, to tax the brass rivets as hardware based on a previous decision in S.N. Industries Corporation v. Sales Tax Commissioner. The Commissioner challenged this decision in the present revision.
  
  The main question raised in the memorandum of revision was whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in taxing brass rivets as brasswares under one notification rather than as hardware under another notification. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent set in S.N. Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, which established that brass rivets were not to be classified as hardware.
  
  The Commissioner, through the learned standing counsel, attempted to argue that brass rivets could be considered unclassified items for taxation purposes. However, the court emphasized that the classification of brass rivets as either unclassified items or brasswares was a debatable issue not suitable for proceedings under the Sales Tax Act.
  
  Ultimately, the revision was dismissed, and costs were imposed. The court highlighted the arguable nature of the classification of brass rivets and the inapplicability of section 22 of the Sales Tax Act for such determinations. The judgment underscores the importance of consistent classification and the limitations of challenging established classifications under specific notifications.
  
  In a related judgment by R.M. SAHAI, J., in S.N. Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the court addressed a similar issue regarding the taxation of brass rivets. The assessee contended that the rivets should be considered unclassified items due to their specific use in military shoes. However, the revising authority rejected this argument, citing previous legal principles related to the definition of "hardware."
  
  The court referred to past cases to establish the definition of "hardware" and the scope of taxable items under relevant notifications. The judgment clarified that the term "hardware" encompassed small articles of base metals, including brass. The court rejected the argument that brass rivets could not be taxed as hardware unless they were also considered mill-stores, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term.
  
  Additionally, the court addressed the classification of brass as a noble metal and its implications for taxation. The judgment highlighted the specific wording of the notification and the distinction between iron-based articles and those made of other metals like brass. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision, setting aside the previous decision and ruling that brass rivets were not taxable as "hardware" for the relevant assessment year.
  
  These judgments collectively emphasize the significance of precise classification for taxation purposes under specific notifications and the need for consistency in interpreting legal definitions, particularly concerning items like brass rivets with potential ambiguities in classification.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 259
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Limitation period for reassessment under section 14(4) and section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
  2. Retrospective application of procedural laws.
  3. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the assessee for explanation.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Limitation Period for Reassessment:
  The primary issue in this case revolves around the limitation period for reassessment under section 14(4) and section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessing authority revised the assessment for the year 1972-73 on 23rd March, 1978, which was beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed by the unamended section 14(4). The assessee contended that the reassessment was barred by limitation as it was made after 31st March, 1977. The court agreed with the assessee, stating that the reassessment could not be done beyond the four-year period under the unamended provision. The amended section 14(4-A), which came into force on 17th January, 1978, could not be applied retrospectively to revive the right to reassess, which had already become barred under the old provision.
  
  2. Retrospective Application of Procedural Laws:
  The court examined whether the amended section 14(4-A), which prescribes a period of four years from the date of service of the order for reassessment, could be applied retrospectively. It was argued by the department that procedural laws, including those related to limitation, can be applied retrospectively. However, the court held that even if procedural laws could be applied retrospectively, they could not revive rights that had already been extinguished under the previous law. The court cited several precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, to support the principle that once the right to reassess is barred under the old provision, it cannot be revived by the amended provision.
  
  3. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided:
  The court also addressed the issue of whether the opportunity provided to the assessee to explain was adequate. The notice for reassessment was served on the assessee on 20th March, 1978, giving only three days to submit an explanation. The court found this period to be "appallingly inadequate" and not in line with the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity under section 14(4). The court emphasized that a reasonable opportunity must be provided, and three days could hardly be considered reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground of limitation, holding that the reassessment was barred under the unamended provision and the amended provision could not revive the barred right. Additionally, the court noted that the opportunity provided to the assessee was inadequate, further invalidating the reassessment. The tax revision case was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 258
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Confirmation of the petitioner as Vice President.
  2. Civil consequences and entitlement to an opportunity of hearing.
  3. Nature of the impugned order: penal or simple reversion.
  4. Arbitrariness of the impugned order.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Confirmation of the Petitioner as Vice President:
  The petitioner argued that he had been confirmed as Vice President of the Customs Tribunal. However, this claim was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel, who accepted that the petitioner was holding a temporary appointment. The court found that there was no decision by the Government of India to confirm the petitioner, and thus, the petitioner was governed by the terms of his temporary appointment, which allowed for reversion with one month's notice.
  
  Civil Consequences and Entitlement to an Opportunity of Hearing:
  The petitioner contended that the reversion order entailed civil consequences, requiring an opportunity for a hearing. The court noted that while civil consequences cover a broad range of impacts, the termination of a temporary employee's service does not necessarily require a hearing unless it is punitive or casts a stigma. The court referenced several cases, including Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, to illustrate that not all actions with civil consequences necessitate a hearing, particularly when the action is in accordance with the terms of service.
  
  Nature of the Impugned Order: Penal or Simple Reversion:
  The petitioner argued that the reversion order was penal because it resulted in a reduction in pay and affected future career prospects. The court rejected this argument, stating that reversion to a previous post inherently results in a reduction of pay and does not constitute a penalty. The court also dismissed the claim that the order cast a stigma on the petitioner, noting that the order was a simple reversion without any punitive elements.
  
  Arbitrariness of the Impugned Order:
  The petitioner claimed that the order was arbitrary because it did not provide reasons for the reversion. The court held that the termination of a temporary employee's service does not require the government to provide reasons, as long as the action is in accordance with the terms of the appointment. The court referenced Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. and Govt. Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa to support this view. The court also found that the Union of India had provided a justification for the reversion, stating that the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory, which did not amount to casting a stigma.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the impugned order of reversion was valid, as it was in accordance with the terms of the petitioner's temporary appointment. The petitioner's arguments regarding civil consequences, punitive nature, and arbitrariness were rejected. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court also suggested that greater protection might be necessary for quasi-judicial posts like the Vice President of the Customs Tribunal, recommending that an independent agency review such decisions to ensure objectivity.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 257
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Winding-up petitions against the company.
  2. Appointment of a provisional liquidator.
  3. Proposed scheme of compromise or arrangement under sections 391, 392, and 393(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.
  4. Application for stay of suits and proceedings against the company under section 391(6).
  5. Objections to the proposed scheme by creditors.
  6. Classification of creditors.
  7. Feasibility and legality of the proposed scheme.
  8. Maintenance of status quo of the company's assets.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Winding-up petitions against the company:
  In November and December 1982, three petitions for winding-up Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd. were filed by Eastern Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd., Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd., and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Company Petition No. 551 of 1981 was admitted on February 9, 1983, and Company Petition No. 581 of 1982 was admitted on February 16, 1983, with directions for advertisements. Advertisements were published on March 11, 1983, and further hearings involved multiple creditors supporting the petitioning creditor.
  
  2. Appointment of a provisional liquidator:
  On April 28, 1983, M/s. Pokharmull & Sons filed another winding-up petition and applied for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The official liquidator was appointed as the provisional liquidator of the company on the same day.
  
  3. Proposed scheme of compromise or arrangement under sections 391, 392, and 393(3) of the Companies Act, 1956:
  On May 12, 1983, the company filed an application proposing a scheme of compromise or arrangement with its creditors and sought directions for meetings to consider the scheme. Directions were given for calling a meeting of the unsecured creditors on July 23, 1983, and the notice of the meeting was to be advertised.
  
  4. Application for stay of suits and proceedings against the company under section 391(6):
  On May 13, 1983, the company filed an application under section 391(6) for an order to stay the commencement and continuation of all suits and proceedings against it and for recalling the appointment of the provisional liquidator.
  
  5. Objections to the proposed scheme by creditors:
  Creditors argued that the proposed scheme was impracticable, unfair, fraudulent, and incurably defective. They contended that the scheme, if implemented, would result in a violation of law. They also emphasized that the court could scrutinize the proposed scheme at any stage, even after an order was made under section 391 for calling a meeting. The creditors highlighted that the scheme only considered sundry creditors and not unsecured loan creditors, making it impractical and illegal.
  
  6. Classification of creditors:
  The creditors argued that sundry creditors and unsecured loan creditors constituted two different classes and that the scheme should be considered by these two classes separately. The company, however, contended that there was no need for such a classification as unsecured loan creditors had expressed their intention to support the scheme and defer repayment of their dues.
  
  7. Feasibility and legality of the proposed scheme:
  The court considered the objections regarding the feasibility and legality of the scheme. It was noted that the scheme was based on certain expectations which might or might not materialize. The court held that the objection regarding the non-provision for payment of loan creditors was curable and that the prohibition under the Deposit Rules of 1975 was not absolute, as section 58A of the Companies Act allowed for an extension of time for repayment with the sanction of the Central Government.
  
  8. Maintenance of status quo of the company's assets:
  The court acknowledged the objection of the sundry creditors regarding the likelihood of dissipation of the company's assets pending the finalization of the scheme. It was deemed in the interest of all concerned that the present status quo of the company's assets be maintained until a final decision on the scheme was reached.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court ordered that the meeting of the creditors should be held without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioning creditor and other supporting creditors. The winding-up proceedings would not be stayed, but the provisional liquidator would not take any further steps regarding the company's properties, assets, and records. All other proceedings pending in respect of the winding-up would stand adjourned until the meeting was held and the chairman's report was filed. There was no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 256
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the transfer of the boiler was made in good faith and for valuable consideration.
  2. Whether the transfer was made within one year before the presentation of the winding-up petition.
  3. Whether the transfer of the boiler was made in the ordinary course of business.
  4. Whether the transfer of the boiler was made by the company.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the transfer of the boiler was made in good faith and for valuable consideration:
  The petitioner alleged that the transfer of the boiler was not in the ordinary course of business and lacked bona fides and valuable consideration. The court examined Section 531A of the Companies Act, 1956, which addresses the avoidance of voluntary transfers. The burden of proving the lack of good faith and valuable consideration lies on the party seeking annulment. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Subramania Iyer's case, which stated that a transaction could be annulled if there was no consideration or if the consideration was so inadequate as to raise a presumption of lack of good faith. Alternatively, the transaction could be annulled if it was shown that the transferee entered into the transaction with a view to shielding the assets from creditors.
  
  The court found that the boiler, purchased for Rs. 41,000 in 1974, was sold for Rs. 85,000 in 1980 after being idle since January 1979. The petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence to support the claim that the boiler's market value was five lakh rupees. The court noted that the sale was conducted with due diligence, including an assessment by the bank's technical officer, and the amount was used to repay the company's debt to the bank. There was no evidence of collusion or intent to defraud creditors. Thus, the court concluded that the transfer was made in good faith and for valuable consideration.
  
  2. Whether the transfer was made within one year before the presentation of the winding-up petition:
  The court noted that the transfer of the boiler occurred on February 15, 1980, while the winding-up petition was filed on August 28, 1980. Therefore, the transfer was made within one year before the presentation of the winding-up petition, satisfying the requirement under Section 531A of the Act.
  
  3. Whether the transfer of the boiler was made in the ordinary course of business:
  The respondents conceded that the transfer of the boiler was not made in the ordinary course of business. Consequently, the court decided this issue accordingly.
  
  4. Whether the transfer of the boiler was made by the company:
  The petitioner contended that the resolution authorizing the sale was not passed by legitimate directors of the company. The court examined the evidence, including affidavits and statements, and found that the persons who passed the resolution were indeed directors of the company. The court also referenced Section 290 of the Companies Act, which validates acts of directors even if their appointment was later found to be invalid. The court held that the resolution dated November 16, 1979, was valid, and the sale was conducted with the consent of the bank, which had the right to sell the pledged assets.
  
  The court further noted that the bank, as a secured creditor, could have sold the boiler independently to recover the debt. The sale proceeds were used to repay the company's debt to the bank, and there was no evidence of misappropriation or fraud.
  
  Additional Considerations:
  The petitioner also moved an application for the prosecution of certain individuals for perjury and preparation of false documents. The court, however, found no reasonable probability of conviction and declined to order prosecution.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed both company applications, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims. The transfer of the boiler was held to be in good faith, for valuable consideration, and within the stipulated time frame, though not in the ordinary course of business. The resolution authorizing the sale was deemed valid, and the sale proceeds were used to repay the company's debt.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 255
  
  Issues:
  Violation of Companies Act - Acceptance of deposits exceeding prescribed limits
  Constitutional validity of section 58A of the Companies Act
  Liability of directors for prosecution
  Article 20 violation in prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to two connected petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash proceedings in a criminal case involving the acceptance of deposits exceeding prescribed limits by a public limited company. The complaint alleged offenses under section 58A(3)(a) and section 58A(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The accused company had accepted deposits exceeding the limits set by the Reserve Bank of India, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the company and its officers.
  
  The petitioners contended that the provisions of section 58A of the Companies Act were ultra vires, violated constitutional articles, and did not apply to transactions entered into before its enactment. They argued that there was no contravention of Reserve Bank of India directions and that the time for deposit repayment had been extended, thus no violation occurred by the stipulated deadline. Additionally, they claimed that the managing director was primarily responsible, and the prosecution under section 58A was unconstitutional under article 20.
  
  The court considered the arguments and found merit in the contention related to article 20 violation. The alleged contravention occurred before the Reserve Bank of India directions ceased, limiting the punishment to three years' imprisonment under the Reserve Bank of India Act, not the five years prescribed by the Companies Act. Therefore, the prosecution under section 58A(3)(c) was deemed violative of article 20 of the Constitution.
  
  Furthermore, it was noted that the company had complied with section 58A of the Companies Act and its rules even in subsequent financial years, as certified by auditors. While this demonstrated the company's compliance, the legal argument regarding the punishment discrepancy was deemed sustainable. Consequently, the court allowed both petitions, quashing the proceedings against the company and its officers in the criminal case.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of violation of the Companies Act, the constitutional validity of section 58A, the liability of directors for prosecution, and the violation of article 20 in the prosecution under the Companies Act. The court's decision to quash the proceedings was based on the finding of an article 20 violation due to the discrepancy in prescribed punishments under different enactments for the same offense committed before the Reserve Bank of India directions ceased.

  ---

• 1983 (9) TMI 236
  
  Issues: Interpretation of clause (d) regarding bonus issue and reduction in conversion price.
  
  The judgment concerns the interpretation of a clause in a prospectus regarding a bonus issue and reduction in conversion price. The plaintiff held convertible bonds issued by the defendant company and argued that a bonus issue should result in a reduction of Rs. 90 in the conversion price per equity share. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's interpretation was illogical and incorrect. The central issue was the construction of clause (d) in the prospectus following a bonus issue in the ratio of 2:5. The plaintiff's argument was based on the word "proportionate," which they claimed should result in a specific reduction amount. The defendant, however, maintained that their approach was correct and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.
  
  The judgment analyzed the mechanics of issuing bonus shares and the practical advantages of such issues. It highlighted that bonus issues increase the number of shares and reduce the value of each share, making them more saleable. The judgment emphasized that the reduction in conversion price following a bonus issue should be proportionate to maintain equality among shareholders and bond holders. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that proportionate reduction meant a reduction of the same percentage, stating that the reduction must be in proportion to the increased number of shares after the bonus issue. The defendant's method was deemed appropriate, ensuring equality between shareholders and bond holders.
  
  Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the summons and deciding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The judgment concluded that the defendant's method of calculation following the bonus issue was correct, placing shareholders and bond holders on an equal footing. No costs were awarded in this matter.

  ---

12345678........ 13