|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 19 of 19 Records
-
1958 (1) TMI 43
Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of notice of dishonour for the hundi.
2. Validity of oral notice of dishonour.
3. Compliance of the written notice with legal requirements.
4. Timeliness of the sale of goods.
5. Binding nature of the sale on the defendants.
6. Proof of damages by the defendants due to belated sale.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Necessity of Notice of Dishonour for the Hundi:
The primary issue was whether a notice of dishonour was necessary when the hundi was dishonoured. The court examined Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was argued that these sections applied only to hundis payable after sight and not at sight. The court concluded that a bill of exchange payable at sight, when presented for acceptance and dishonoured, requires a notice of dishonour as per Sections 91 and 93. The court also discussed the interpretation of Section 30, concluding it is not a complete code and must be read in conjunction with Sections 91, 92, and 93.
2. Validity of Oral Notice of Dishonour:
The plaintiffs contended that an oral notice of dishonour was given in September 1943. However, the court found no evidence supporting this claim. The plaint relied solely on a written notice dated 1st October 1943, negating any previous oral notice.
3. Compliance of the Written Notice with Legal Requirements:
The written notice of dishonour was given on 1st October 1943, while the hundi was dishonoured on 2nd September 1943. Section 106 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the notice to be given within a reasonable time, which was not met in this case. The court found the notice given after 28 days to be unreasonable and not in compliance with Section 106. The plaintiffs' argument under Section 98(c) was dismissed as it was not pleaded in the trial court.
4. Timeliness of the Sale of Goods:
The court examined whether the sale of goods (matra and arhar) was conducted within a reasonable time. The goods were delivered on 12th September 1943, but the sales occurred in 1945 and 1946. The court found that the plaintiffs should have effected the sale within a reasonable time after the notice was given on 1st October 1943. The belated sales were not binding on the defendants.
5. Binding Nature of the Sale on the Defendants:
The court acknowledged that a pawnee is not required by law to sell pledged goods within a specific time. However, if the pawnee chooses to sell, it must be done within a reasonable time after notice. The court held that the plaintiffs' sales in 1945 and 1946 were not binding on the defendants due to the unreasonable delay.
6. Proof of Damages by the Defendants Due to Belated Sale:
The defendants did not provide evidence of the market rates for matra and arhar in 1945 and 1946. The court noted that without such evidence, the defendants could not prove the damages suffered due to the belated sale. Consequently, the court dismissed the argument regarding the necessity of a fresh notice for the sale in 1945 and 1946.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the notice of dishonour was necessary and not given within a reasonable time, absolving the drawer of liability. The sales of matra and arhar were not binding on the defendants due to the unreasonable delay. The cross-objections were also dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1958 (1) TMI 42
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the mortgage bond.
2. Admissibility of secondary evidence.
3. Proof of execution of the mortgage bond.
4. Subsistence of the mortgage debt.
5. Legal implications of the will executed by Venkata Subba Rao.
6. Burden of proof regarding discharge of the mortgage debt.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Mortgage Bond:
The plaintiff's suit was based on a mortgage bond executed on 18th April 1933. However, the plaintiff did not produce the original mortgage bond, claiming it was lost. The plaintiff's assignor, defendant No. 3, supported this claim but provided vague statements regarding the document's whereabouts. The lower court allowed secondary evidence, but the appellate court found this decision flawed due to insufficient proof of the document's loss.
2. Admissibility of Secondary Evidence:
Section 65 of the Evidence Act permits secondary evidence if the original document is lost or destroyed. The appellate court emphasized that sufficient proof of the search for the original document is necessary. The plaintiff's mere statement about the loss was deemed inadequate. The court referred to the Privy Council's stance that secondary evidence should not be accepted without exhausting all means to locate the original document.
3. Proof of Execution of the Mortgage Bond:
The court highlighted that the execution of a document required by law to be attested must be proved by calling at least one attesting witness, as per Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff failed to call any attesting witnesses, even though some were still alive. This failure was a fatal defect, leading the court to conclude that the mortgage deed was not properly proved.
4. Subsistence of the Mortgage Debt:
The court considered the statement in the will of Venkata Subba Rao, which categorically mentioned that there were no debts owed to defendant No. 3 or others. This statement, coupled with the lack of any demand for payment by defendant No. 3 during the administration of the estate, strongly suggested that the mortgage debt was not subsisting. The court also noted the improbability of the debt's subsistence given the circumstances and relationships involved.
5. Legal Implications of the Will Executed by Venkata Subba Rao:
The will executed by Venkata Subba Rao stated that there were no debts owed by the estate. This will was admitted as genuine in another suit, and defendant No. 3 supported its validity. The court found this statement significant and indicative of the non-existence of the mortgage debt. The court also noted that the bequeathal of mortgaged properties to defendant No. 3's daughter without mentioning the encumbrance further supported the conclusion that the mortgage debt was not subsisting.
6. Burden of Proof Regarding Discharge of the Mortgage Debt:
The court clarified that the burden of proving the discharge of the mortgage debt did not shift to the defendants, as they were not parties to the original transaction and had no knowledge of it. The plaintiff, as the assignee, bore the burden of proving the execution and subsistence of the mortgage bond. The plaintiff's failure to prove the mortgage bond and the debt's subsistence led to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not obtain any relief.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside. The appellate court held that the mortgage bond was not proved, and the plaintiff, as an assignee, could not get any relief. The appellant was entitled to costs from respondents 13 to 15 both in the appellate court and the lower court.
-
1958 (1) TMI 41
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain revision applications under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act after its amendment by U.P. Act 17 of 1957.
2. Application of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act to pending revision applications.
3. Interpretation of "right" and "privilege" under Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act.
4. Application of the legal maxim "Nova constitutio, futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis."
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court Post-Amendment:
The primary issue addressed was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain revision applications under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which were filed before the amendment by U.P. Act 17 of 1957. The amendment transferred the jurisdiction from the High Court to the District Courts. The Court noted that the amendment came into force on 4th June 1957, and any application filed after this date would fall under the jurisdiction of the District Courts as per the new Section 25.
2. Application of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act:
The Court examined Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, which deals with the effect of repeals on existing rights, privileges, obligations, and legal proceedings. Specifically, it was considered whether the amendment affected applications in revision that were filed but not disposed of before the amendment date. The Court held that Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act conferred no right or privilege on any person within the meaning of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and thus, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not preserved for applications filed after the amendment.
3. Interpretation of "Right" and "Privilege":
The Court clarified that Section 25 of the former Act did not confer a "right accrued" or "privilege" within the meaning of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. The term "right" must be one that has accrued under a repealed Act, and "privilege" is defined as an exceptional right or advantage, which Section 25 did not provide. Thus, neither Clause (c) nor Clause (e) of Section 6 was applicable in preserving the High Court's jurisdiction over pending revision applications.
4. Legal Maxim - Nova constitutio, futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis:
The Court invoked the legal maxim, meaning a new state of the law ought to affect the future, not the past. It was emphasized that the Legislature did not intend to cause injustice by requiring litigants to restart proceedings in a different court. The Court reasoned that it would be unjust to compel litigants, who had already filed applications and engaged counsel under the old law, to initiate new proceedings in another court due to the amendment. Therefore, the Court concluded that it retained jurisdiction to hear applications in revision filed before the amendment date, provided the Court had already called for the records.
Separate Judgments by Judges:
V. Bhargava, J.:
Judge Bhargava agreed with the Chief Justice but preferred to base his decision on Clause (b) of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. He argued that the High Court's act of calling for the record was something duly done under the repealed Section 25, and thus, the High Court retained jurisdiction to pass further orders. This interpretation ensures that litigants are not unfairly deprived of the High Court's judgment due to delays beyond their control.
M.L. Chaturvedi, J.:
Judge Chaturvedi concurred with the judgment of Judge Bhargava, reinforcing the view that the High Court retained jurisdiction over pending revision applications where records had been called for before the amendment date.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that it retained jurisdiction to hear revision applications filed before 4th June 1957, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, provided the records had been called for before the amendment date. This decision was grounded in the principles of justice and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the U.P. General Clauses Act.
-
1958 (1) TMI 40
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act regarding the transfer of property with restricted personal enjoyment.
Analysis:
The case involved a second appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, focusing on whether a property interest granted to a widow was restricted to personal enjoyment, thus rendering it inalienable. The dispute arose from the respondent granting land to his brother's widow for maintenance, subsequently leasing it and then selling the rights to the appellant. The key contention was whether the interest created for the widow was limited to personal enjoyment, making it non-transferable under Section 6(d).
The lower courts had conflicting views on the matter, with the Subordinate Judge allowing transfer based on a life interest granted to the widow, while the District Judge held that the enjoyment was restricted to her personally, disallowing the transfer. The appellate court delved into the language of the document (Ex. A-1) to determine the nature of the interest created for the widow. The court analyzed precedents such as ILR 47 Bom 597 and AIR 1939 PC 157 to understand similar cases where restrictions on alienation were upheld, emphasizing the need to consider surrounding circumstances for interpretation.
Additionally, the court examined a judgment from the Patna High Court (AIR 1946 Pat 55) to distinguish cases where restrictions on enjoyment were deemed valid. It was highlighted that mere restrictions on disposal or debt did not automatically render the interest inalienable under Section 6(d). The court emphasized that if a life estate was created, subsequent limitations on transfer could be void as they impeded the beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Furthermore, the court referenced a judgment from the Allahabad High Court (ILR 54 All 366) to support the view that widows granted property for maintenance could have the right to transfer during their lifetime for practical reasons. The judgment underscored the importance of analyzing the intention behind the grant and the nature of rights conferred against the property to determine applicability under Section 6(d).
Ultimately, the court concluded that the interest granted to the widow was a life estate, not limited to personal enjoyment, and thus, the transfer to the appellant was valid. The Subordinate Judge's interpretation was upheld, overturning the District Judge's decision. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs, considering the circumstances of the case.
-
1958 (1) TMI 39
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 46 of the Income-tax Act without the Income-tax Officer exercising discretion under section 45 when an appeal is pending.
Analysis:
The petitioner was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1951-52, with an income of &8377; 1,91,017 and tax demanded at &8377; 67,383-12-0. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment on 5th April, 1956. The Income-tax Officer refused the petitioner's request for time to pay until the appeal was disposed of. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner granted time till 1st June, 1956. Despite knowing about the pending appeal, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of &8377; 1,500 on 11th June, 1956, under section 46 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner challenged this penalty through a petition filed on 19th June, 1956. The main appeal against the assessment order was decided on 30th April, 1957, reducing the tax payable to &8377; 4,569-13-0.
The key contention was that the Income-tax Officer failed to exercise discretion under section 45 of the Income-tax Act before imposing the penalty under section 46. Section 45 provides that an assessee presenting an appeal may not be treated as in default until the appeal is disposed of. The Income-tax Officer must exercise discretion in such cases. In this instance, the Income-tax Officer did not exercise discretion despite being aware of the pending appeal and the petitioner's requests for time to pay until the appeal was decided. The court held that the imposition of the penalty without the proper exercise of discretion was invalid and set it aside.
The reduction in the tax amount due to the successful appeal was also noted by the court. While this reduction may not directly impact the legal analysis, it highlighted the potential hardship the petitioner would have faced if required to pay the higher tax amount pending the appeal decision. The court ultimately set aside the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer, stating that it was made without jurisdiction. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the matter.
In conclusion, the court found that the Income-tax Officer's failure to exercise discretion under section 45 before imposing the penalty under section 46 rendered the penalty invalid. The court set aside the penalty of &8377; 1,500 imposed on the petitioner and directed each party to bear their own costs.
-
1958 (1) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and sufficiency of the notice to quit.
2. Nature of the tenancy (whether for manufacturing purposes).
3. Applicability of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950.
4. Plaintiff's reasonable requirement for the premises.
5. Comparative advantage and disadvantage to the landlord and tenant.
6. Applicability of the proviso for partial eviction under the Rent Control Act.
7. Claim for mesne profits.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity and Sufficiency of the Notice to Quit:
The court examined whether the notice to quit served on the defendant was valid and sufficient. The notice was served on 13-5-1955, requiring the defendant to vacate by the end of May 1955. The court held that a fifteen-day notice was sufficient unless the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes, which would require a six-month notice.
2. Nature of the Tenancy (Manufacturing Purposes):
The court analyzed whether the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes, which would necessitate a six-month notice. The defendant claimed the tenancy was for manufacturing purposes, but the court found that the manufacturing activities were minor and subsidiary to the main purpose of motor repair works. Thus, the tenancy was not for manufacturing purposes, and a fifteen-day notice was deemed sufficient.
3. Applicability of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950:
The court considered whether the defendant was protected from eviction under the Rent Control Act. The key question was whether the defendant's purchase of the tenancy in liquidation proceedings came within the provisos of Section 12(1) of the Act. The court concluded that the sale in liquidation was a transfer by operation of law, not by the tenant, and thus, the defendant was not deprived of protection under the Act.
4. Plaintiff's Reasonable Requirement for the Premises:
The plaintiff claimed he needed the premises for his own occupation, citing disturbances at his current residence and health issues. The court found that the plaintiff's requirement was genuine and reasonable, subject to the test of comparative advantage and disadvantage.
5. Comparative Advantage and Disadvantage to the Landlord and Tenant:
The court weighed the comparative advantages and disadvantages to both parties. Given sufficient time, the defendant could relocate without greater disadvantage than the plaintiff would suffer from not obtaining possession. The court concluded that the plaintiff's requirement was reasonable, but the defendant should be given time until the end of November 1958 to vacate.
6. Applicability of the Proviso for Partial Eviction:
The court considered the proviso for partial eviction, which allows the court to order partial eviction if it substantially satisfies the landlord's reasonable requirement and the tenant agrees. The court found that approximately one bigha of the premises would suffice for the plaintiff's needs and suggested a division of the premises accordingly. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the applicability of this proviso and to consider further materials for a just decision.
7. Claim for Mesne Profits:
The court held that the claim for mesne profits depended on the outcome of the eviction claim. If the plaintiff's claim for ejectment was decreed fully, mesne profits would follow; otherwise, the court might need to reconsider the claim for rent in place of mesne profits.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration of the disputed proviso and final disposal in accordance with the judgment. The trial court was instructed to expedite the matter and consider additional materials to determine a just division of the premises. Costs were left to the discretion of the trial court.
-
1958 (1) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India holds an office of profit under the Government of India.
2. Whether the Regulations made by the Life Insurance Corporation constitute a law which disqualifies its employees from standing for election within Article 191(1)(e).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India holds an office of profit under the Government of India:
The court examined whether the position held by C. Krishnamurthi as a Junior Inspector under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) constituted an "office of profit under the Government of India" under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Tribunal initially found that the office held by Krishnamurthi did not fall under this category, as the LIC is a statutory corporation created by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and not a government entity.
The court analyzed the historical context, noting that the phrase "office of profit under the Government" traces its origins to English law but lacks direct judicial interpretation. The court considered the degree of control and financial dependency of the LIC on the government, concluding that the LIC, despite being created by a statute and subject to some government control, operates as an autonomous entity. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Maulana Abdul Shukoor v. Rikhab Chand, which distinguished between government departments and statutory bodies with independent legal status.
The court emphasized that the LIC's employees are appointed and remunerated by the Corporation, not directly by the government. The Corporation's financial operations are separate from government revenues, and its employees are not considered civil servants. The court concluded that the LIC is not a government department or an agent of the government, and thus, its employees do not hold an office of profit under the Government of India.
2. Whether the Regulations made by the Life Insurance Corporation constitute a law which disqualifies its employees from standing for election within Article 191(1)(e):
The court examined Regulation 29 of the LIC, which prohibits its employees from taking an active part in politics or standing for election to any legislative body. The key question was whether this regulation imposed a disqualification "by or under any law made by Parliament" as required by Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution.
The court distinguished between disqualifications imposed directly by a law made by Parliament and those imposed under the authority of such a law. It held that a regulation made by the LIC under the authority granted by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, constitutes a law made "under" a law made by Parliament. The court rejected the Tribunal's view that only rules made by the Central Government under Section 48 of the Act would qualify as such a law.
The court further held that Regulation 29, by prohibiting employees from standing for election, effectively imposed a disqualification. The regulation's purpose was to ensure that LIC employees focused on their duties without political distractions, but this prohibition operated as a disqualification under Article 191(1)(e).
Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, holding that C. Krishnamurthi was disqualified from standing for election under Article 191(1)(e) due to Regulation 29 of the LIC. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed, and the election of Narayanaswami Naidu and Jayaraj was upheld.
-
1958 (1) TMI 36
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of appointment and removal of Managing Committee members.
2. Existence of disputes and deadlock within the Managing Committee.
3. Appointment of a Receiver for the management of the trust property.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and appoint a Receiver.
5. Impact of the trust being subject to the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Appointment and Removal of Managing Committee Members:
The court examined the validity of the appointments and removals of the Managing Committee members of the trust. It was noted that J. Boadita was deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and subsequently, Mr. Leo Lawrence was appointed in his place. The Deputy Charity Commissioner accepted this change. However, Mr. Fonseca, the President, was also deported, and Mr. Leo Lawrence claimed to have been appointed as President. The plaintiffs contested the validity of these appointments, arguing that the proper procedures under the Legislative Diploma were not followed. The court observed that the notification issued by the Governor-General on 19-3-1957, which purported to remove defendants Nos. 2 and 3, did not automatically result in their removal without appropriate steps under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
2. Existence of Disputes and Deadlock within the Managing Committee:
The court recognized the serious disputes and dissensions between defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on one side and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on the other. These disputes had rendered the functioning of the trust impossible. The court noted that the plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking the removal of the Managing Committee members due to these disputes. The trial judge found that the charity was not functioning and that a deadlock had been created, making it imperative to appoint a Court Receiver.
3. Appointment of a Receiver for the Management of the Trust Property:
The court considered whether it was just and convenient to appoint a Receiver. It was observed that the Managing Committee was not properly constituted, and there was no clear evidence that the appointments of Mr. Leo Lawrence as President and other members were valid. The court found that the deadlock and lack of a properly constituted Managing Committee justified the appointment of a Court Receiver to manage the trust property during the pendency of the suit.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Suit and Appoint a Receiver:
The court addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by Mr. Parpia, who argued that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or appoint a Receiver. The court held that the trust, being registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was subject to its provisions. The court emphasized that the Deputy Charity Commissioner's decision, confirmed in appeal, that the trust was a public trust, was final and conclusive. The court also noted that the property and assets of the trust were situated in Bombay, and the beneficiaries were within the jurisdiction of the City of Bombay, thereby affirming the court's jurisdiction.
5. Impact of the Trust Being Subject to the Bombay Public Trusts Act:
The court highlighted that the trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, making it subject to the Act's provisions. The court dismissed the argument that the trust was a foreign charity, noting that it was created and intended to function within Bombay. The court concluded that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and appoint a Receiver for the management of the trust property, given the deadlock and disputes within the Managing Committee.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial judge's decision to appoint a Court Receiver for the management of the trust property. The court found that the disputes and deadlock within the Managing Committee, coupled with the lack of a properly constituted committee, justified the appointment of a Receiver. The court also affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the suit and make the appointment, given that the trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and subject to its provisions.
-
1958 (1) TMI 35
Issues:
1. Validity of the tax imposed on cinema houses by the municipality.
2. Constitutionality of section 59(1)(xi) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.
3. Legality of enhancements in tax rates in 1941 and 1948 under the Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of the tax imposed on cinema houses by the municipality
The appellant, a public limited company operating cinema houses, challenged the levy and imposition of a tax by the municipality on cinema houses within the Bombay province. The appellant contended that the tax was invalid and illegal, especially the enhancements made in 1941 and 1948. The trial court initially held the tax valid but deemed the enhancements illegal. However, the High Court reversed this decision, upholding the validity of the tax. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the tax was imposed for specific purposes outlined in the Act, such as providing amenities like lighting and water supply, and the municipality's power to levy taxes was not beyond the scope of the legislative framework.
Issue 2: Constitutionality of section 59(1)(xi) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925
The appellant argued that section 59(1)(xi) of the Act was unconstitutional as it allowed the municipality to impose taxes without clear guidance, leading to excessive delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the municipality's taxing power was limited by the provincial legislature's authority, and taxes could only be levied for purposes outlined in the Act. The Court highlighted that the Act set standards for tax imposition, ensuring that taxes were related to the duties assigned to the municipality. Additionally, the approval of the Governor-in-Council provided a check on the municipality's tax imposition powers, preventing arbitrary taxation.
Issue 3: Legality of enhancements in tax rates in 1941 and 1948 under the Act
The appellant contended that the enhancements in tax rates in 1941 and 1948 were illegal under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The appellant argued that the Act did not grant the municipality the power to increase tax rates. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the relevant sections of the Act and concluded that the word "modify" in the Act allowed for alterations in tax rates, including increases. The Court noted that the legislative intent was to broaden the scope of tax modification, encompassing various alterations beyond mere reductions. Therefore, the enhancements in tax rates were deemed legal under the Act.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the tax imposed by the municipality on cinema houses and affirming the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.
-
1958 (1) TMI 34
Issues:
Provisional assessment under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948 before the amending Act of 1955.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner was provisionally assessed with tax for sale transactions of his business ending on 31st March, 1955, without being required to furnish an advance estimate of turnover or periodical returns before the assessment. The amending Act of 1955 introduced provisions for provisional assessment, allowing authorities to determine tax in advance based on turnover estimates or returns. However, the petitioner argued that the assessment was invalid as he was not asked to provide turnover estimates or returns before the assessment.
The validating clause of the amending Act aimed to validate acts done before its commencement under the principal Act as amended. The petitioner contended that the provisional assessment could not be justified under the amending Act as it required turnover estimates or returns before assessment, which were not obtained in this case. The respondent argued that authorities had discretion to base assessments on previous year's transactions without requiring turnover estimates or returns.
The Court held that the authorities cannot require turnover estimates or returns without prescribed rules, rendering the provision ineffective. It was emphasized that the assessing authorities must obtain turnover estimates or returns before determining tax based on the previous year's transactions. Ignoring the requirement for estimates before assessment was deemed incorrect, and the authorities were obligated to follow the prescribed procedure.
Conclusively, the Court ruled that the provisional assessment was made without jurisdiction and set aside the order of assessment. The judgment highlighted the necessity of following the prescribed procedure for provisional assessments under the amending Act. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the decision was agreed upon by both judges.
-
1958 (1) TMI 33
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transactions between the petitioners and their customers were "sales" or "bailments by way of hire".
2. Whether the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, could levy sales tax on hire-purchase transactions.
3. Whether the legislative power to levy sales tax on such transactions was ultra vires of the State Legislature.
4. Whether the inclusion of hire-purchase transactions within the definition of "sale" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act was valid.
5. Whether the transactions were liable to sales tax at the inception of the hire-purchase agreement or only upon the exercise of the purchase option.
6. Whether the consideration for the sale should include the total of the hire instalments.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Transactions: "Sales" or "Bailments by Way of Hire"
The petitioners contended that the transactions were "bailments by way of hire" and not "sales". They argued that their role was merely to provide financial assistance to customers to purchase vehicles from dealers, and the hire-purchase agreements were designed to secure the recovery of instalments. The court examined the terms of the agreements and concluded that the transactions involved two distinct sales: one from the dealer to the petitioners and another from the petitioners to the customers. The court emphasized that the hire-purchase agreements conferred an option to purchase, which, when exercised, resulted in a sale.
2. Levy of Sales Tax on Hire-Purchase Transactions
The court analyzed whether the Madras General Sales Tax Act could levy sales tax on hire-purchase transactions. It referred to the definition of "sale" in section 2(h) of the Act, which included hire-purchase transactions. The court concluded that hire-purchase agreements, which involve an element of sale, could be taxed under the Act. It noted that the primary purpose of these agreements was to facilitate the sale of goods, even though they included a bailment element to secure the seller's interest.
3. Legislative Power to Levy Sales Tax
The petitioners argued that the State Legislature's power to levy sales tax on hire-purchase transactions was ultra vires, as it was not comprehended within the entry "tax on the sale of goods". The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sales Tax Officer v. Budh Prakash, which held that a tax on the sale of goods could only be imposed when there was a completed sale. The court concluded that hire-purchase transactions, which ultimately result in a sale, fall within the legislative power to tax sales.
4. Validity of Including Hire-Purchase Transactions in the Definition of "Sale"
The petitioners contended that the inclusion of hire-purchase transactions within the definition of "sale" under the Act was ultra vires. The court referred to the decision of the Punjab High Court in Instalment Supply Ltd. v. State of Delhi, which held that hire-purchase agreements do not constitute sales until the option to purchase is exercised. The court, however, distinguished the present case by noting that the hire-purchase agreements involved a transfer of title upon the exercise of the purchase option, thus constituting a sale.
5. Timing of Tax Liability: Inception or Exercise of Purchase Option
The court addressed whether sales tax could be levied at the inception of the hire-purchase agreement or only upon the exercise of the purchase option. It concluded that if the transaction ultimately results in a sale, the tax could be levied at the inception of the agreement. The court noted that the instalments paid under the hire-purchase agreement included an element of the purchase price and were designed to facilitate the sale.
6. Consideration for the Sale
The court examined how the consideration for the sale should be computed. It concluded that the total of the hire instalments stipulated in the hire-purchase agreement should be treated as the price or consideration for the sale. The court emphasized that the instalments represented both the hire for the use of the vehicle and the purchase price, and thus constituted the consideration for the transfer of title.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the transactions of hire-purchase entered into by the petitioners constituted sales, rendering them liable to sales tax on their turnover, except in cases where the vehicle was seized due to the hirer's default and no title passed to the customer. The court upheld the validity of including hire-purchase transactions within the definition of "sale" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and concluded that the tax could be levied at the inception of the hire-purchase agreement, with the total of the hire instalments treated as the consideration for the sale.
-
1958 (1) TMI 32
Issues:
1. Application for writ of mandamus and prohibition regarding sales tax assessment and recovery.
Analysis:
The petitioner applied for a writ of mandamus directing the Sales Tax Officer to withdraw a tax certificate and a writ of prohibition against the Tahsildar and the Collector to prevent the collection of sales tax amounting to Rs. 2,500. The dispute arose when the Sales Tax Authority assessed the petitioner's total turnover at Rs. 1,60,000, levied a tax of Rs. 2,500, and imposed a penalty for non-submission of returns. The petitioner objected to the tax collection, claiming that another individual was his partner in the business and equally liable for the tax. However, the petitioner never admitted to being partners with the assessee before the assessment was made. The Sales Tax Officer relied on the account books produced by the assessee to determine the petitioner's partnership. Nevertheless, the petitioner was not served with a notice before the tax collection attempt. The Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules require reporting partnership within thirty days, which was not done in this case. The court found a lack of jurisdiction in recovering the tax from the petitioner without proper notice or evidence of partnership. Consequently, the court issued a writ of prohibition against the tax recovery, ruling in favor of the petitioner and awarding costs.
This judgment revolves around the application for a writ of mandamus and prohibition concerning the sales tax assessment and recovery process. The key issue was the dispute over tax liability between the petitioner and the Sales Tax Authorities. The petitioner contested the tax assessment and collection, arguing that he was not a partner with the assessee and should not be held liable for the tax amount of Rs. 2,500. The Sales Tax Officer attempted to recover the tax from the petitioner based on the partnership claim made by the assessee during the assessment process. However, the court found that there was no evidence of the petitioner admitting to being a partner before the tax assessment was made. Additionally, the Sales Tax Authorities failed to follow the required procedure of issuing a notice to the petitioner regarding the partnership claim and tax liability. The court highlighted the importance of complying with the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, which mandate reporting partnerships within a specified period. Since there was no proof of partnership reported within the stipulated time frame, the court concluded that the tax recovery from the petitioner lacked legal basis. As a result, the court granted the petitioner's application, issuing a writ of prohibition against the tax recovery and awarding costs to the petitioner.
-
1958 (1) TMI 31
Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax on a limited company for sales beyond the State of Bihar.
2. Application for review of assessment and refund of tax.
3. Constitutional validity of sales tax imposition for the period in question.
4. Interpretation of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution regarding inter-State transactions.
5. Exemption from tax based on delivery and consumption in the State of first destination.
6. Proper directions under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the assessment and refunding excess tax paid.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in copper and mineral products business, was assessed to pay sales tax for sales beyond Bihar. The petitioner sought a review of the assessment and refund of the tax paid, citing a Supreme Court judgment on inter-State taxation.
2. The petitioner applied for a review of the assessment under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, which was rejected by the tax authorities. Subsequent revision applications were also dismissed, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking a writ to quash the assessment and refund the tax collected unlawfully.
3. The High Court examined the petitioner's claim for a refund of tax paid for sales outside Bihar during the specified period. The legal validity of the tax imposition for the pre-Constitution period was upheld based on a previous decision by the High Court regarding the constitutionality of the relevant tax provisions.
4. The Court analyzed the constitutional implications of Article 286(1)(a) concerning inter-State transactions, citing a previous case that clarified the restrictions on State taxation powers in such scenarios. The legal fiction determining the situs of sales and the impact of the President's Sales Tax Continuance Order were considered.
5. The Court emphasized the requirement for proof of delivery and consumption in the State of first destination to claim exemption from tax. The distinction was made between goods consumed within the State of first destination and those re-exported to other States, determining the eligibility for tax exemption accordingly.
6. In conclusion, the Court set aside the assessment made by the tax authorities and directed a reassessment of sales tax in accordance with the law for the specified period. Additionally, the respondents were instructed to refund any excess tax paid by the petitioner. The application was allowed with no costs imposed on either party.
-
1958 (1) TMI 30
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution in the context of sales tax on shellac.
2. Application of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution to exempt sales of shellac.
3. Consideration of Article 286(2) of the Constitution in relation to sales tax.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution
The case involved a dispute regarding the taxation of shellac sales under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The assessee argued that the sales were exempt as they were part of export activities. However, the Court held that for a sale to be exempt under Article 286(1)(b), it must be an integral part of the export process. Referring to precedent cases, the Court emphasized that the sale must be directly connected to the exportation of goods out of the country to qualify for exemption.
Issue 2: Application of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution
The assessee also contended that the sales of shellac should be exempt under Article 286(1)(a) as they were intended for export. However, the Court rejected this argument as there was no evidence to support that the sales were specifically for consumption within the state of West Bengal. Therefore, the Court concluded that the sales did not meet the criteria for exemption under Article 286(1)(a).
Issue 3: Consideration of Article 286(2) of the Constitution
Lastly, the assessee claimed that sales of shellac were exempt under Article 286(2) of the Constitution. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the President's Sales Tax Continuance Order of 1950 allowed for the imposition of sales tax despite Article 286(2) restrictions. Citing a previous decision, the Court clarified that only the hurdle imposed by Article 286(2) needed to be overcome, which was achieved through the President's Order and Central Act No. 7 of 1956 for the relevant period.
In conclusion, the Court held that the sales of shellac were validly taxed by the revenue authorities, rejecting all arguments presented by the assessee. The Court answered the question of law against the assessee and in favor of the State of Bihar, directing the assessee to bear the cost of the reference and the hearing fee.
-
1958 (1) TMI 29
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the variation of rights of ordinary shareholders.
2. Proper procedure for effecting the variation of shareholder rights.
3. Legality of the resolution passed on 18th May 1957.
4. Maintainability of the petition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Variation of Rights of Ordinary Shareholders:
The petitioners claimed that the resolution passed on 18th May 1957, which reduced the dividend rights of ordinary shareholders from 10% to 6%, was illegal. They argued that the resolution unfairly prejudiced the rights of ordinary shareholders and was not in their interest. The petitioners contended that the resolution was passed without proper authority and was oppressive to minority shareholders.
2. Proper Procedure for Effecting the Variation of Shareholder Rights:
The court examined Article 65 of the company's articles of association, which stipulates that any variation of class rights must be effected through an agreement ratified by at least three-fourths of the nominal value of the issued shares of that class or confirmed by an extraordinary resolution passed at a separate general meeting of the holders of shares of that class. The court noted that the variation in this case was purportedly effected by an agreement dated 12th April 1957, which was ratified by a large number of ordinary shareholders. The petitioners did not challenge the agreement in their petition but focused solely on the resolution passed on 18th May 1957.
3. Legality of the Resolution Passed on 18th May 1957:
The petitioners argued that the resolution was invalid as it was not passed at a separate meeting of the ordinary shareholders. They contended that the resolution was passed at a general meeting of all shareholders, which was contrary to Article 65. The court, however, found that the variation was effected by the agreement and not by the resolution. The resolution was merely a step to alter clause 5 of the memorandum to reflect the agreed variation. The court held that the variation was complete upon the requisite consent being given as per Section 106 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and did not require the passing of a special resolution.
4. Maintainability of the Petition:
The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the petition. The court noted that the petitioners did not challenge the variation effected by the agreement but only the resolution passed on 18th May 1957. Since the variation was completed by the agreement, the petitioners' focus on the resolution was misplaced. The court also pointed out that the petitioners had an opportunity to amend their petition to include a challenge to the agreement but chose not to do so. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the grounds of maintainability.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the variation of the rights of ordinary shareholders was validly effected by the agreement dated 12th April 1957, which was ratified by the requisite number of shareholders. The resolution passed on 18th May 1957, was not necessary to complete the variation but was required to alter the memorandum. The petitioners' failure to challenge the agreement rendered their petition unsustainable. The court dismissed the application with costs, certifying the order for counsel and staying its operation for one month.
-
1958 (1) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a "legal character" within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. Whether the board of directors had the power to revoke the plaintiff's appointment as joint managing director.
3. Whether the plaintiff can rely on the articles of association of the first defendant company for the reliefs claimed.
4. Whether the resolutions dated September 23, 1957, were ultra vires the board of directors.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declarations and injunctions prayed for.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Legal Character under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act
The plaintiff argued he was entitled to a "legal character" as a managing director under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The court examined the definition of "legal character" and concluded that it is synonymous with "legal status," which involves a peculiarity of the personality arising from anything unconnected with the nature of the act itself. The court found that the managing directorship does not confer any such peculiarity of personality independent of the powers or rights as a managing director. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any legal character within the meaning of Section 42. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration that he continues to be the joint managing director.
Issue 2: Power of the Board to Revoke Appointment
The court analyzed whether the board of directors had the power to revoke the plaintiff's appointment as joint managing director. Article 99 of the company's articles of association allowed the directors to appoint a managing director and vest certain powers in him "from time to time." The court interpreted this to mean that the board also had the implied power to revoke such appointments. The court referred to the case of Foster v. Foster, where it was held that the board of directors had the power to remove a managing director under similar articles. Thus, the board of directors of the first defendant company had the power to revoke the plaintiff's appointment as joint managing director.
Issue 3: Reliance on Articles of Association
The plaintiff, not being a shareholder of the first defendant company, could not rely on the articles of association to challenge the resolutions. The articles of association constitute a contract only between the company and its shareholders, not with outsiders. The court cited the case of Mothey Krishna Rao v. Grandhi Anjaneyulu, where it was held that a non-shareholder cannot invoke the articles to claim a cause of action. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to place any reliance on the articles of association of the first defendant company.
Issue 4: Ultra Vires Resolutions
Given the court's findings that the board of directors had the power to revoke the plaintiff's appointment and that the plaintiff could not rely on the articles of association, the resolutions dated September 23, 1957, were not ultra vires the board. The board acted within its powers under Article 99, and the resolutions were valid.
Issue 5: Entitlement to Declarations and Injunctions
Since the plaintiff was not entitled to a legal character, he could not obtain the declaration that he continues to be the joint managing director. Furthermore, the plaintiff could not rely on the articles of association to challenge the resolutions. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the declarations and injunctions prayed for. The court also noted that even if the plaintiff had a legal character, it would not have exercised its discretion to grant the declarations, given that the company could ratify the board's actions in a general meeting.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the suit to the first defendant company and half of one set of costs to defendants Nos. 2 to 6. The court reserved the decision on the application for costs under Rule 601 of the High Court Rules until the bills of costs were lodged with the Taxing Master.
-
1958 (1) TMI 22
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the allotment of 2,905 discount shares to Kamakhyalal Goenka.
2. Payment made by the appellants in respect of the shares standing in their respective names.
3. Liability of minors as contributories.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Allotment of 2,905 Discount Shares to Kamakhyalal Goenka:
The primary argument was whether there was a valid allotment of 2,905 discount shares to Kamakhyalal Goenka. The appellants contended that there was no allotment or, if any, it was void. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the allotments were made with Kamakhyalal's knowledge and consent. The legality of these allotments was questioned under rule 94A of the Defence of India Rules, which requires Central Government consent for capital issues. However, the defect was cured by a subsequent condonation by the Central Government. The court further examined the validity under section 105A of the Indian Companies Act, which requires a resolution passed in a general meeting and court sanction for discount shares. The court found that these requirements were not fulfilled, but emphasized that the liability for contribution arises ex lege under section 156 of the Act, making the member liable regardless of the initial contract's validity. The court concluded that Kamakhyalal's name appearing in the register of members established his liability for contribution.
2. Payment Made by the Appellants:
The appellants argued that the call money due had already been paid. The court reviewed the register and found discrepancies but noted that Kamakhyalal's name appeared as a member holding the 2,905 shares. Despite pencil entries and discrepancies, the contemporaneous statement sent to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies confirmed the correctness of the entry. The court held that Kamakhyalal's statutory liability to contribute arose under section 156 of the Act, as he knowingly allowed his name to remain on the register without seeking its removal.
3. Liability of Minors as Contributories:
The appellants raised a new contention that some contributories were minors, making the contracts void. The court noted that this plea was not raised earlier and found no evidence that the company was aware of the minors' status. Kamakhyalal, as the chairman, purchased the shares in the names of his family members, including minors, without disclosing their minority. The court held that even if the shares were in the names of minors, Kamakhyalal could be substituted as a contributory. The court referenced cases distinguishing situations where the company was aware of the minors and where it was not. The court concluded that Kamakhyalal's liability was joint and several for all shares standing in his and his family's names.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding Kamakhyalal Goenka liable for the contribution, with costs. The judgment emphasized the statutory liability under section 156 of the Indian Companies Act, regardless of initial contractual irregularities, and allowed substitution of Kamakhyalal for his minor family members as contributories.
-
1958 (1) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the proper amount due from the company to the claimants.
2. Whether the claims were wrongly rejected as time-barred.
3. Application of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act regarding acknowledgment of debts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the Proper Amount Due from the Company to the Claimants:
The court had to settle the list of creditors and determine the exact amounts due to each claimant. The official liquidator had partly accepted and partly rejected several claims, leading to disputes that required judicial resolution.
2. Whether the Claims Were Wrongly Rejected as Time-Barred:
The primary contention was whether the claims were time-barred. The claimants argued that the relevant date for determining the limitation period was the date of the petition for winding up (April 21, 1952), not the date of the winding up order (September 23, 1953). The court examined the provisions of Sections 168, 171, and 227 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Section 168 states that the winding up of a company by the court is deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for winding up. Section 171 imposes a statutory bar on suits or legal proceedings against the company after a winding up order is made. The court concluded that the material date for limitation purposes is the date of the winding up order, not the date of the petition. This interpretation aligns with the principle that limitation continues to run unless explicitly stopped by statutory provisions. The court rejected the claimants' argument that Section 168 should extend the limitation period to the date of the petition.
3. Application of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act Regarding Acknowledgment of Debts:
The court also considered whether the claims were acknowledged in the company's balance-sheet, thereby extending the limitation period under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. The court examined individual claims:
- Shri A.K. Bhalla: Claimed Rs. 55,133-15-0. The official liquidator allowed Rs. 17,161-2-9. The court found an acknowledgment in the balance-sheet for Rs. 36,695-4-9, making the total claim Rs. 50,606-7-6, which was within time.
- Shrimati Yash Kumari Bhalla: Claimed Rs. 11,081-15-0. The balance-sheet acknowledged Rs. 9,340-4-0. Adding interest, the total claim was Rs. 10,100-8-0, which was within time.
- Shri Bhagwan Das: Claimed Rs. 68,500. The official liquidator allowed Rs. 9,616-10-9. The balance-sheet acknowledged Rs. 52,355-2-9. The total claim was Rs. 60,346-13-6, which was within time.
- Dr. Tara Chand: Claimed Rs. 7,588-6-0. The balance-sheet acknowledged Rs. 11,405-12-0. After payments, the remaining claim was Rs. 6,883, which was within time.
- Messrs. J.C. Bhalla & Co.: Claimed Rs. 1,666. The official liquidator allowed Rs. 35. The court found the full claim of Rs. 1,666 to be within time.
- Messrs. Ram Chand Puri and Sons: Claimed Rs. 2,359-7-9. The claim was found genuine but time-barred as of the winding up order date.
The court held that entries in the balance-sheet constituted an acknowledgment of debts under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, extending the limitation period from the date of acknowledgment.
Conclusion:
The court determined the proper amounts due to each claimant based on acknowledgments in the company's balance-sheet and ruled that the material date for limitation purposes is the date of the winding up order. Claims acknowledged in the balance-sheet were found to be within time, while others were rejected as time-barred.
-
1958 (1) TMI 1
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Excise authorities to stop clearance of goods.
2. Interpretation of Rule 178(3A) regarding the issuance of licenses to heirs.
3. Legality of the condition imposed by the Superintendent of Central Excise.
4. Availability and effectiveness of alternative legal remedies.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Excise Authorities to Stop Clearance of Goods:
The primary issue was whether the Excise authorities had the right to stop the clearance of tea manufactured at the Topia Tea Estate. The court examined relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 3, 6, and 7 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Rule 52, which governs the clearance of goods. The court concluded that the rules do not provide jurisdiction to stop the clearance of goods if the manufacturer is prepared to pay the excise duties. The court stated, "The illegal condition stopping clearance is, therefore, unwarranted by law."
2. Interpretation of Rule 178(3A) Regarding the Issuance of Licenses to Heirs:
The court analyzed Rule 178(3A), which states that upon the death of a licensee, the original license is terminated, and a new license should be granted to the person in actual possession of the premises. The court found that the petitioner was in actual possession and thus entitled to the license. The court emphasized, "The direction to grant the licence to the person in actual possession is mandatory."
3. Legality of the Condition Imposed by the Superintendent of Central Excise:
The court found that the condition imposed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, which allowed manufacturing but stopped clearance until a dispute among heirs was resolved, was without jurisdiction. The court stated, "The rules nowhere provide that under the law, they can stop the sale of the goods or the clearance thereof so long as the petitioner is prepared to pay the Excise duties." The court further noted that the proviso in Rule 178(3A) does not justify such a condition.
4. Availability and Effectiveness of Alternative Legal Remedies:
The court addressed the argument that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. The court acknowledged that while these remedies existed, the facts of the case were undisputed and any delay would cause significant loss. The court stated, "We would not, of course, encourage the practice of filing applications for writs before us even though specific remedies may be available under the law; but the facts in this case are undisputed, and any further delay in the matter is not only likely to cause serious loss to the petitioner but also result in loss of public revenue."
Separate Judgment by H. Deka, J.:
Judge H. Deka concurred with the Chief Justice but added that even if the proviso to Rule 178(3A) were interpreted as suggested by the Excise Department, the condition could not be imposed after the license had already been issued. He stated, "Therefore, this contention is wrong on two grounds, namely,-that the proviso does not really mean that under no circumstances licence can be issued when there is dispute between interested parties over the concerned that needs a licence, and that the licence being issued, there could be no restriction on the rights of the person concerned as to carrying on the business, like clearance of the stock or sale of the same, unless there be any other rule providing for such restriction."
Conclusion:
The court set aside the condition imposed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and directed that the petitioner be allowed to clear the tea upon payment of excise duties, as provided under Rule 52. The court concluded, "We accordingly order that the order be modified to the extent that, on the basis of the licence the petitioner will have the necessary right of clearance, subject to the payment of taxes, as provided under Rule 52 framed under the Act."
|
9911796707
