Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1955 1955 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 41 to 49 of 49 Records

• 1955 (3) TMI 19 - TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... abad General Sales Tax Act, 1950. No case has apparently arisen in that State questioning the validity of the section and none was cited before us. 17.. Our attention was drawn to certain decisions of the Mysore High Court by the learned Government Pleader. We find that there is no section in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, corresponding to sec- tion 21 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, and it is hence unnecessary to discuss those decisions in this judgment. 18.. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in Gigina Pasha Sahib, In re(2), and Syed Mohamed and Co. v. State of Madras(1), and our conclusion is that section 21 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, is not ultra vires of any of the provisions of the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We answer the reference accordingly. Reference answered accordingly. (1) 1952 3 S.T.C. 367 A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 105. (2) 1950 1 S.T.C. 240.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... icting observations in decisions of this Court, it was referred by us to a Full Bench. The Full Bench has now answered the reference in favour of the assessees. The result is that these purchases both from Bangalore and Bombay which are purchases from unlicensed dealers are not liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessees. We might mention in passing that though the partner Ibrahim was the seller in Bangalore, as he was not individually licensed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the purchase from him by the assessees firm should be treated as a purchase from an unlicensed dealer. The result is that the assessees are entitled to succeed and the order of the Tribunal including the Bangalore and Bombay purchases in the turnover of the assessees is set aside. In view however of the assessees having failed in the other conten- tions raised by them before us, we direct that there should be no order as to costs in this revision case. Revision partly allowed.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the Act. This point is also covered by authority. In Deputy Commis- sioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore v. Messrs. M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Sons(1), a Bench of the Madras High Court held that tax (1) 1954 5 S.T.C. 88 (1954) 2 M.L.J. 151. collected by the seller under sub-rule (7) of rule 5 of the Turnover and, Assessment Rules is not liable to be taxed again, and cannot therefore be included in the net turnover of the assessee. With respect we are in agreement with the principle laid down there. In our opinion the order under revision is correct and has to be affirmed. In the result, the revision case is dismissed with costs, only Advocate s fee Rs. 125. We have taken the view in T.R.C. No. 214 of 1953 (reported below) that the definition of turnover as amended by the Andhra Legisla- ture does not bring in sales tax collected by the dealer. That being so, we do not find it necessary to alter our opinion with regard to the decision of this case. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed by the dealer within the definition of turnover. The question of levying tax on the tax collected by the dealer would only arise if he is permitted to collect the tax. In our view, the definition of turnover as amended by the Andhra State Legislature is not comprehensive enough to include sales tax col- lected by the dealer. It follows that the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal is unassailable. In this view of the matter, it is not neces- sary for us to go into the larger question relating to the competence of the Provincial Legislature to define turnover embracing sales tax while legislating under the aforementioned entry. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 250. (In the view taken above, our judgment in T.R.C. No. 131 of 1953 is correct and does not require reconsideration or review.) Petition dismissed. Reported as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada Division v. Bujranga Jute Mills Ltd. 1955 6 S.T.C. 376.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... icle 286(2) of the Constitution and would be liable to sales tax under the proviso to Article 286(2) and the Order of the President made thereunder. It is not disputed that the turnover in these cases was liable to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act before 26th January, 1950. The President s Order under the proviso to Article 286(2) of the Constitution would save the right of the Madras State to tax such sales up to 31st March, 1951, if the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) is found, on the facts, to be inappli- cable to the sales in question. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence as to whether the sales sought to be charged to tax fall within the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a), we remit the petition to the Appellate Tribunal with our opinion on the points of law raised before us. There will be no order as to costs. SUBBA RAO, C.J.-I agree. BHIMASANKARAM, J.-I agree. Petitions remitted. (1) 1953 4 S.T.C. 133 (1953) 1 M.L.J. 743.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... otton yarn, which he subsequently sold, was purchased by the assessee in Cochin State. Nor was it disputed that the cotton yarn was sold within the Madras State. Under rule 4A(1) read with rule 4(1) of the Turnover Rules, the assessee as the first dealer in yarn, within the State of Madras was liable to pay the tax on the sales turnover. That liability he could escape only if he could get the benefit of the exemption granted by the Notification No. 1011 and that exemption he could claim only if he could prove that at the time he entered into the agreements to sell the cotton yarn within the State of Madras, the goods were actually in Cochin State. The Tribunal observed that such evidence the assessee failed to furnish. Therefore, the petitioner could not prove that he was entitled to the exemption he claimed, and the Tribunal rightly rejected his claim. The petitions fail and are dismissed with costs in T.R.C. No. 359 of 1953 only. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petitions dismissed.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 13 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ng these deci- sions is that Courts of law have got the power, apart from any express provision, to further the ends of justice and prevent harassment to the parties. What applies to the Courts of law also applies to quasi- judicial Tribunals. Therefore, since the Board of Revenue has the power to adjudge the correctness of the impugned order, it has also the power to stay the proceedings in pursuance of that order. 6.. The petitions are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue dated 18th September, 1954, rejecting the applica- tions for stay of proceedings before the Regional Assistant Commis- sioner of Sales Tax, Amravati, are set aside and the cases are remitted for adjudication in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amounts of security shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions allowed. (1) I.L.R. 33 Cal. 927. (3) I.L.R. 54 All. 344. (2) I.L.R. 40 Cal. 955. (4) I.L.R. 43 Cal. 986.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Charges – Rectification of register of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ruisers 1949 1 Ch 139 19 Comp Cas 131 where no winding up petition nor consideration of a resolution of voluntary winding up was pending and the relief was granted unconditionally. In In re M.I.G. Trust Ltd. 1933 1 Ch 542, 571-2 Romer L.J., was of the opinion that the question of the pendency of a winding up petition was wholly irrelevant in such application. In the present case not only a winding up petition has been presented but a provisional liquidator has been appointed. In my opinion the appointment of a provisional liquidator is a material consideration in deciding if the discretionary relief should be granted. It is not alleged that any mortgage relief should be granted on the 15th September, 1954, and the court is not called upon to extend the time of registration of a mortgage other than the mortgage, dated the 15th September, 1954. The application is dismissed. The petitioner will pay one set of costs to all parties opposing this application. Certified for counsel.

  ---

• 1955 (3) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Evidence - Smuggling

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hat there is, in this case, no reliable corroboration of Eickhoff s evidence in court that the gold that was found in his cabin was brought there by the accused Watson and in the absence of such corroboration, it is not possible to rely on his testimony. 17. emsp My conclusion, therefore, is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and that the order of his conviction cannot stand. 18. emsp I would, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence and order that the accused be acquitted. He is discharged from his bail bond. 19. emsp The direction which was issued under orders of this Court to the Air Liners, Steamship Companies and Indian Railways having their offices in Calcutta not to book any air or other passage for the appellant until further orders of this Court is also withdrawn. The Security Police is directed to inform the Air Liners, Steamship Companies and Indian Railways concerned of this order of withdrawal.

  ---

123