|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 130 Records
-
1976 (2) TMI 189 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... acter which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften such intention in shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. Under these circumstances, there are no merits in the second appeal, and the same fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. No leave.
-
1976 (2) TMI 188 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onsidered as having a father or mother or other relatives mentioned in Rule 79. From this it follows that there is no impediment to nominate the petitioner under Rule 80 of Part III, K S.R. The objection of the Accountant General, therefore, against the nomination of the mother superior (petitioner in each of the cases) is legally unsustainable. The result is that the amount of pension and gratuity due to the deceased mentioned in each of the cases is due to the petitioner in each of the cases. The orders to the contrary passed by the Accountant General, the District Educational Officer and the Government are quashed and it is declared that the petitioner in each of the cases is entitled to receive the gratuity and the pension benefits due to the deceased. The respondents are directed to pay the amount which the deceased was eligible to the petitioner in each of the cases. The original petitions are, therefore, allowed. But, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1976 (2) TMI 187 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ision of this Court in M. Narasimachari’s case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants is of no assistance to them as the point as to whether an opportunity to show cause was to be afforded to a Government servant before applying a cut in his pension in view of the principle of natural justice embodied in the well known maxim audi alteram partem was never urged or gone into in that case. Furthermore as pointed out by Palekar, J while speaking for the Court in K.R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta’s case (supra) the question whether pension is a bounty or property did not arise in the former case. The present case is, in our opinion, fully covered be the judgment of this Court in K.R. Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta’s case (Supra). 7. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality and were rightly rendered. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.
-
1976 (2) TMI 186 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate Tribunal, on the basis of which the Revenue urged that the registration was justifiably refused, was that no proper accounts were kept. It appears that the questions of limitation was neither passed before the Appellate Commissioner nor before the Appellate Tribunal on behalf of the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal relying on the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mohan Lal Chagganlal (1963) 50 I.T.R. 477 and V. K. Kurian and K. P. George vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 63 I.T.R. page 675 held that merge absence of keeping of accounts could not be in law a ground for refusal of registration if otherwise its is found that the Firm was a genuine one and partner were dividing profits and losses in accordance with the terms of partnership. In fact we think the question referred to is more a question of fact rather than of law. Even so, we answer Income-tax in favour of the assessee. As no body has appeared to oppose this reference, there would be no order for costs.
-
1976 (2) TMI 185 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by virtue of the notification issued by the High Court, the Registrar was not competent to entertain the election petition nor could the appellant have presented the election petition legally to the Registrar during such period. We are further satisfied that this is a case in which Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, applies in terms and the appellant was fully justified in filing the election petition on the re-opening day of the High Court, namly, July 8, 1974. In these circumstances the view taken by the High Court that the election petition was barred by time is wrong on a point of law and the finding of the learned Judge on issue No. 8 cannot, therefore, be sustained. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the order of the High Court dated February 10, 1975, is set aside to and the matter is remitted to the learned judge for trying the election petition in accordance with the law. In the special circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs, in this Court.
-
1976 (2) TMI 184 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I would, Therefore, agree with the Rent Control Tribunal that having taken advantage of the first application to the extent of obtaining the arrears of rent from the respondents and then having withdrawn that rent, the appellants cannot proceed to get the defense struck out on the very same ground by a subsequent application. Furthermore, since December, 1967, the respondents have made subsequent deposits, all of them in time, and they have continued to deposit the rent up to date. Therefore, this does not seem to be a suitable case in which the defense should be struck out because of the very peculiar circumstances of the case. I would, Therefore dismiss the appeal and leave the parties to bear their own costs. It is to be seen that this eviction petition has been pending for a very long time and, Therefore, should be decided as soon as possible. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent controller on 19th March 9. Appeal dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 183 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1959 Rules under which the assessee was not entitled to claim it. The contention of the assessee was that even though such a set-off had been taken away under the new Act, it nonetheless continued to survive and if the assessee complied with the conditions which would have entitled the assessee to claim the set-off under the 1954 even after the enactment of the new Act, the assessee should be granted the set-off under the 1954 Rules. This contention was rejected by us. In the case before us, the set-off that is claimed by the respondents is not under the 1954 Rules. It is a set off claimed by them under the express provisions of sub-R. (2) of R. 40 of the 1959 Rules and this case falls to be decided purely upon the construction to be placed upon the language of the said R. (2) of R. 40 of the 1959 Rules. 13. In the result, we answer the question as reframed by us in the affirmative. The Applicant will pay to the Respondents the costs of this Reference fixed at ₹ 250/-.
-
1976 (2) TMI 182 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d Mulla-Contract Act 9th Ed. by J. L. Kapur pp. 519-520). In the present case, the respondents do not support the demand for administrative charges either as a tax or as a fee but as a term and condition of permit and as a term of agreement between the parties for the maintenance and supervision expenses for the scheme for export permits of rice from one block to another within the State or outside the State. It may be stated here that in cases where the State collected administrative changes but could not grant permits the State refund t ed moneys to such Person. It is only where millers have obtained permits and taken advantage thereof that the State contends that there is no mistake and that the payments were made voluntarily with full knowledge of facts. For these reasons the appeals are dismissed. If the parties are so advised they may institute suits and all rival contentions would be . open to both parties. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 181 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... duplicating machines and accessories directly or indirectly for a period of five years. It is clear from the agreement that both the appellants and M/s. Macneill and Barry Ltd. have retained their identity as manufacturer and as distributor respectively. It is also not the case of the Assistant Collector that the appellants are not selling their goods to M/s. Macneill and Barry Ltd. The subject case appears to be on all fours with the case of M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd., Shikhohabad in which it was held by the Allahabad High Court that the sale of their bulbs to the Customers Companies was on wholesale basis. In view of the above position I hold that the sale by the Appellants Co. to M/s. Macneill and Barry Ltd., is on wholesale basis and the price at which they sell their goods to M/s. Macneill and Barry Ltd., should be accepted as assessable value. In view of the above position the order of the Assistant Collector is set aside, appeal is accepted and consequential relief allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 180 - ASSISTANT APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
... ...
... ... ..... ence is proved and the Assistant Collector’s order to this extent is upheld. 5. I further observe that rolling bearings are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the condition mentioned in Notification No. 104/71, dated 29-5-1971. The above exemption may be allowed to the appellants if admissible. 6. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I modify the order of the Assistant Collector to the extent that personal penalty of ₹ 250/- imposed by him is reduced to ₹ 100/-. Duty on reconditioning bearings will not be charged after the Assistant Collector has satisfied himself about the exact number of such reconditioned bearings. Duty on new bearings manufactured by the appellants will, however, be duly charged if due after keeping in view the provisions of Notification No. 104/71, dated 29-5-1971. In computing the value of Bedford Clutch Release Bearings, the value of the Hub shall be excluded.
-
1976 (2) TMI 179 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... e; the petitioners’ own declaration of 4 mm thickness at the time of payment of duty is clear enough to indicate that the thin-walled bearings at least upto the thickness of 4 mm were commercially known as “Thin-walled Bearings”. Further, the Director General (Technical Development) has certified that thin-walled bearings be of thickness upto 3.16" or 4.76 mm. In that consideration, the I.S.I. specification cannot be accepted where there is no reason to discard the specifications of another Technical Authority like the Director General (Technical Development). In the circumstances, the revision application is rejected.
-
1976 (2) TMI 178 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... suo motu powers of revision by interfering with the orders of the authorities mentioned in that section, such intimation itself will not constitute an order under section 34(1) of the Act. In this particular case, as we have pointed out already, the Board of Revenue declined to interfere with the assessment originally made, but merely gave some relief in respect of the rate of tax. Obviously, the petitioners are not aggrieved by the reduction of the rate of tax made by the Board of Revenue and are aggrieved only by the proceedings of the Board of Revenue declining to interfere with the order of assessment. The proceedings of the Board of Revenue declining to interfere, not being an order passed by the Board under section 34(1) of the Act so as to attract the appellate jurisdiction of this court under section 37 of the Act, we are of the opinion that the appeal itself is not maintainable and, therefore, the same is dismissed on that basis. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (2) TMI 177 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rule 15 should, therefore, be of a return under rule 15 and a final assessment under that rule and not an assessment under rule 18. This is also clear from the fact that section 7 is omitted in rule 18(6) but included in rule 15(5). We are accordingly of the opinion that the assessee who had opted to be assessed originally under rule 18 is not entitled to claim to be assessed under section 7 at the time of assessment under rule 18(6). We have considered the question as to the applicability of rule 15(4-B) to the case of the assessee on the basis that the provision was available for the assessment year 1971-72. We may point out that sub-rule (4-B) of rule 15 was deleted with effect from 27th September, 1971, in G.O. Ms. No. 2845 dated 27th September, 1971. In the result, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside and the assessment order is restored. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he estimated turnover to 50 per cent. Though it could not be said with any amount of certainty that the estimate made by the Tribunal was inaccurate or palpably unreasonable, we consider that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the estimate should be further reduced to one half of the figures that was determined by the Tribunal especially when even under the original assessment made under section 12, the assessing authority had included a small amount in respect of the probable escaped turnover. Subject to this reduction, the estimate itself is confirmed. The assessing authority also levied penalty. But this was on the basis of the actual suppression found, but not on the basis of the estimated turnover of the suppression. We are, therefore, unable to interfere with the order levying penalty. The tax revision petitions accordingly are dismissed, subject to the reduction in the total turnover estimated, with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 175 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er to bring it within entry 41. Our view also finds support from two decisions. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Binny s Engineering Works Ltd. 1975 35 S.T.C. 260. , which is a decision of this court, it was held that fuse switch boxes are taxable under entry 41 as component parts or accessories to electrical goods. In K.V. Narasimulu v. State of A.P. 1971 27 S.T.C. 178., the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that wooden casings and reapers used in electrical wiring fall within the scope of accessories of electrical goods and taxable as such. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the globes or lamp-shades and the tin protectors of lights in the streets are taxable at single point as accessories to electrical goods under entry 41 of the First Schedule. The tax revision petitions are accordingly allowed. The revenue will be entitled to its costs in T.C. Nos. 243 and 442 of 1971. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each. There will be no order as to costs in T.C. No. 77 of 1973. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 174 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... learned Government Pleader next contended that in any case this might be brought in under the later half of entry 41. After enumerating certain items like fans, lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares and porcelain as being included in that entry, the entry further stated all other instruments, apparatus, appliances, accessories and component parts, the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy . Even in this portion of the entry, we are of the view that accessories and component parts should be with reference to an article which falls under that entry. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the battery plates would fall under item 41 of the First Schedule. We are of the view that it is liable to be taxed only under section 3(1) at multi-point in the relevant assessment year. In the result, all the tax revision petitions are allowed with costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 150 in each case. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 173 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity. If necessary, the respondent-authority will ensure compliance under section 21A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, of such papers and documents that may be in the possession of the coal mines authority. With the aforesaid direction the rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. It is recorded that the coal mines authority has not filed any affidavitin-opposition and does not admit any statement or allegations made in the petition. Civil Revision Case No. 3216(W) of 1974 In view of the decision in Civil Revision Case No. 3215(W) of 1974, this rule is also made absolute to the extent indicated in that case with the directions as in that case. There will be no order as to costs in this rule. In this case also the coal mines authority has not filed any affidavitin-opposition and does not admit any allegation made in the petition. Rule made absolute.
-
1976 (2) TMI 172 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would have to be exempted. Even that is not possible, because it is the sales in the canteen that are exempt under the Government Order, if the conditions are satisfied. The sales referred to therein should, therefore, be one by the employer to the employee. When the canteen is run by one employer, who is under a statutory obligation, and another, who is not under a statutory obligation, the seller is both the employers jointly and not the individual employers separately. Therefore, there is no possibility of dividing the sales into those which are exempt and those which are not exempt. The result of it is that the entire turnover would not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the Government Order. We accordingly hold that in the instant case the turnover in dispute is liable to be included in the taxable turnover and, accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (2) TMI 171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d and decided in those cases. No doubt, Harikisandas Gulabdas and Sons v. State of Mysore 1971 27 S.T.C. 434., a decision of the Mysore High Court, expressed a contrary view. But in taking that view, R.S. Jhaver v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1965 16 S.T.C. 708. and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver(2) appear to have been relied on. So far as Jhaver s case(4) was concerned, the present question was not decided. The prayer in that case was for a simple direction to return the documents illegally seized. The court was not called upon to decide whether, before returning those documents, the court can permit the user of such documents in revenue proceedings. We, accordingly, direct that the revenue will make use of the photostat copies or other copies which are in the sealed cover in this court, which the Registrar will make available to them and the revenue will return the photostat copies within twelve weeks from to-date. Ordered accordingly.
-
1976 (2) TMI 170 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... made to pay sales tax by the assessing authorities. If the petitioners had issued the bills to non-resident dealers stating that the sale price is inclusive of sales tax to oblige the purchasers, it would have been easy for the petitioners to produce evidence to the effect that it was so written only to oblige the non-resident dealers who wanted to evade payment of tax although the sale price did not include the sales tax. The transactions were made conveniently under oral agreements and they had also not chosen to maintain any separate account for the sales tax collections made by them. Therefore, on the facts of this case, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the invoices were so made just to oblige the non-resident dealers who did not want the tax liability to be attracted under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the result, the revisions fail and they are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
