|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 187 Records
-
1978 (8) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pediment" within the meaning of Article 145 of the Portugues Code, which could be said to have prevented the party from filing the appeal within limitation prescribed by the Portugues Code. In the application made for condonation of delay the appellants have categorically stated that they bonafide believed, presumably on legal advice, that Article 116 of the Limitation Act 1963 was applicable and they had acted bonafied in filing the appeal in the judicial Commissioner's Court within a period of 90 days as per that provision. In the circumstances, we grant the application for condonation of delay and direct that the appeal (being Civil First Appeal No. 6 of 1968 be taken on file and be disposed of by the Judicial Commissioner's Court on merits in accordance with law. The appeal before us is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. We trust that Civil First Appeal No. 6 of 1968 will be disposed of expeditiously.
-
1978 (8) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uo;brick-earth’. As already observed y us, if the expression ’minor mineral’ as defined in the Act includes ’ordinary clay’ and ’ordinary sand’. there is no earthly reason why ’brick-earth’ should not be held to be ’any other mineral’ which may be declared as ’minor mineral.. We do not think it necessary to pursue the matter further except to say that this was The view taken in Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar(A.I.R 1965 Patna 491) Amar Singh Modilal v. State of Haryana(A.I.R 1972 Punj. and Har. 356) and Sharma and Co. v. State of U.P.( A.I.R.. 1975 All. 86. . ). We do not agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Jagadamba Prasad (A.I.R.. 1969 Cal. 2XI.) that because speaks of ’ordinary earth’ as a mineral it is not a minor mineral as defined in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed
-
1978 (8) TMI 223 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the power under S. 59(f)(v) unguided and the rule framed there under is bad as arbitrary?
Held that:- The provision [Section 59(f)(v)] is valid on a consideration of the criteria controlling the wide words used therein there is a minor matter remaining to be disposed of. The extract from the Section, as will be noticed, contains a clause which runs: "and the closure of such premises on special occasions". Thus, rules may be made by the Financial Commissioner for fixing the closure of licensed premises on ’special occasion’. It is thus a blanket power which is an unreasonable restriction on the licensee’s trade. Certainly if ’special occasions’ means any occasion which appeals to the mood of the Financial Commissioner or has other casual fascination for him the rule may suffer from arbitrary and unreasonable features. Gandhiji’s birthday and also Vinobaji’s birthday have been included in the licence itself. ’Special occasions’ contemplated by Sec. 59(f) (v) are not stricken by such a vice for the obvious reasons we have elaborately given in the earlier part of our argument. The occasion must be special from the point of view of the bread considerations of national solemnity. public order, homage to national figures, the likelihood of eruption of inebriate violence On certain days on account of meals, festivals or frenzied situations or periods of tension. Bapuji’s birthday, election day, hours of procession by rival communities when tensions prevail or festivals where colossal numbers of people gather and outbreak of violence is on the agenda, are clear illustrations. ’Special occasions’ cannot be equated with fanciful occasions but such as promote the policy of the statute as expounded by us earlier. There is no merit in this argument either and we reject it. Appeal dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 222 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, it cannot provide an adequate ground for remission of penalty in the present case. The reason being that the assessee itself had brought about this situation by diverting the tax realised by it to another sister concern. The assessee having realised tax on the disputed turnover should have kept that amount ready for payment of tax on the validity of the imposition being upheld either by the High Court or Supreme Court, which happened in the present case. It was not reasonable on the part of the assessee for diverting the money to another sister concern without waiting for result of the litigation. There was thus no reasonable cause for not paying the tax within time. The quantum of penalty is also not arbitrary and the Judge (Revisions) has given good reasons for reducing the amount of penalty. The question, as reframed is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 221 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce is the test applied in a number of cases brought to my notice, viz., Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Pritam Singh(1), Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.(2) and F. Rose Mary Carpentry Works, Coimbatore v. State of Madras(3). Once this test is applied, which it must in view of high authority, gramophone needles would not fall within the category of component parts of gramophone as they do not constitute one of the integral parts which combine to make up a gramophone. Gramophone needles may be required in order that records may be played on the gramophone, but neither the gramophone records nor the needles are integral constituents of the gramophone. Gramophone needle is as such not a component part of the gramophone. The question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. As none has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (8) TMI 220 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .). It has been held that as both mill-stores and hardware had been coupled together in a single entry, they refer to allied trades. Mill-stores consisted of items like small tools and spare parts of machinery and that hardware referred to small item of base metal particularly building materials like huts, hinges, rivets, etc. The view taken was that all the items falling within this entry must have something common to each other. Now, leather belts are admittedly not tools. They are also not spare parts of machinery as understood in the mill-stores trade, for they are not an additional or an extra part of a machinery which forms one of the components of machine. They were as such rightly assessed as leather goods which they undoubtedly are, being made of leather. The question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its cost, which is assessed at Rs. 300. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (8) TMI 219 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lso. It is manifest from the above that the matter is now concluded against the petitioners on the specific point now sought to be raised on their behalf. Once the issue of the constitutionality of the provisions is out of the way, the matter is essentially in a narrow compass. As already stands noticed, the specific challenge was to the order of the Assessing Authority, Sirsa, District Hissar, dated 6th December, 1973. Mr. Dogra frankly concedes that the said order was appealable. Therefore, in view of the provisions of article 226(3), the writ is not maintainable because of the availability of the alternative remedy of statutory appeals and revisions. We, therefore, relegate the petitioners to their ordinary remedy and to the benefit of the proviso to section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, if they are attracted to their case. The writ petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 300 only. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 218 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rdships considered the issue so plain and beyond challenge as to brush aside all arguments against it rather summarily. If retrospectivity beyond a decade, as held in that case, was free of any unconstitutional vice, one fails to see how it can be otherwise in the present case as well. All the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners having been repelled, this set of writ petitions is hereby dismissed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs. In passing, it may be mentioned that some of these writ petitions also sought the quashing of the relevant assessment orders. Admittedly, against the said orders, the statutory remedy by way of appeal, revision and reference is available to the petitioners and they must consequently be relegated to the same. If the provisions of section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, are attracted to the case of any one of the petitioners, he would obviously be at liberty to pursue the said remedy. Petitions dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 217 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sale or not. Unless a transaction amounts to sale , it is not taxable under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, whether it be a works contract or a transaction of barter or exchange. Accordingly, we express no opinion whether the transactions in the present case amounted to works contract, as held by the Tribunal, or they were transactions of barter or exchange. In either case, they do not amount to sales and are, therefore, not exigible to sales tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 10.. The question referred to us is answered as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of case, the transaction in which the dealer obtained kansa (raw material) from his customers and supplied utensils of the same weight and charged only labour charges, does not amount to a sale and is, therefore, not liable to sales tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 11.. The reference is answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (8) TMI 216 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. The proviso to this sub-section directs adjustment of the amount refundable towards any tax or other amount outstanding against the dealer. Rule 88 is specific, so far as cash security is concerned. It lays down that the tax or other amount payable by the dealer may be adjusted from cash security furnished by the dealer. A combined consideration of section 29(1) and rule 88 leaves little room for doubt that cash security deposited by a dealer can be adjusted towards the tax due. In the present case, as there is nothing on the record to indicate that penalty proceedings were subsisting on the date when the dealer had to deposit the tax, his restoration application should have been entertained, as there was no penalty order in existence. The deposit already made became sufficient by adding the amount of cash security deposited by the dealer. The revision is accordingly dismissed. As none has appeared for the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 215 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e standpoint of identification and in commercial sense , not from the meaning in dictionaries. Dehusked paddy may be is rice. The commodities may have common botanical name (Oryza sativa L). The two items (paddy and rice), items 21 and 22 in the State Act 6 of 1957 were held in Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana 1973 32 S.T.C. 623 (S.C.). , as two different items by the Supreme Court and in that sense is no more open to be questioned, therefore the contention of Sri N.K. Acharya cannot be countenanced. In the result, having regard to the provisions in section 8(2A), section 15(c) of the Central Act 74 of 1956, item 22 read with explanation III in the Third Schedule of the State Act 6 of 1957 paddy out of which rice is procured involved in inter-State trade, we hold tax paid on paddy is liable to be (reduced) reimbursed. The writ petitions are allowed with the directions indicated above and for the costs we make no order. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 214 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d. The Tribunal, however, allowed the revision on an interpretation, as made by it, of the expression sales tax actually collected as such , but without applying its mind to the facts found. It cannot be gainsaid that law cannot be applied in isolation of facts. Since the facts as found by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes which were put before the Tribunal by the learned counsel of the dealer have not been found to be unacceptable or wrong, it must be held that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the deduction of Rs. 1,32,710.38 as claimed by the dealer towards sales tax realised from his customers was not an admissible deduction in terms of sub-sections (1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of section 7 of the Act. The question referred is, accordingly, answered in the negative. The dealer shall be entitled to costs hearing fee Rs. 250 (two hundred and fifty) only. SARWAR ALI, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (8) TMI 213 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... igned or used or usable as an instrument for inflicting bodily harm, e.g., gun, bomb, rifle, sword, spear............... The Judge (Revisions) has referred to the amendment effected in this item of the notification on 15th November, 1971, by which khukris were excluded from the category of arms. Assuming that he was justified in law in referring to the amendment for the purposes of interpreting the notification, as it stood in its unamended form, the amendment, instead of indicating that khukris did not come within the category of arms , indicates to the contrary. This is so because it specifically excludes khukris from the category of arms , which would not have been necessary in case khukris did not fall within the category of items comprised in the word arms . The question is answered by saying that khukris are covered by the notification of 1st June, 1963. As none has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (8) TMI 212 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rring in this notification has to be interpreted not as a term of art but as understood in common parlance in the commercial world. See Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prayag Chemical Works, Naini, Allahabad 1970 25 S.T.C. 85 (F.B.)., and the case of Industrial Gases v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow 1968 21 S.T.C. 124. So understood salt petre or kalmi sora, which is normally not used in any manufacturing or processing activity but is used as food article cannot be put in the category of chemicals. In fact, in the case of Industrial Gases(2), the Bench while giving example of such commodities, which in the scientific sense would be chemicals but should not be treated as such, has mentioned salt petre as one of the commodities which would not answer the description of chemical as used in the notification. This decision settles the point. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. The assessee is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 211 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wn the conditions which make the dealer liable for penalty at the time of reassessment. As earlier pointed out, section 19(1) of our Act does not contain these conditions. Learned counsel further relied upon Ramakutty Nadar v. State of Madras 1973 31 S.T.C. 44., which is also a case of the Madras High Court in which the earlier Madras case(1) was followed. We were also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 1973 32 S.T.C. 77 (S.C.). We do not, however, find in this case anything helpful for deciding the question with which we are concerned in these references. 6.. For the reasons stated above, our answer to the question referred to us is that if penalty is imposed under section 19(1) for concealment of turnover or for filing a false return, no separate penalty can be imposed under section 43(1) in reassessment proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs of these references. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (8) TMI 210 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from the sphere of tax liability. Counsel for the assessee replied that while both a sale and a purchase are covered by section 5A, and a sale alone is referred in the exemption notification, there is a good justifying reason for the same viz., that synthetic gems are liable under section 5(1)(ii) of the Act only at the point of sale and not at the point of purchase. In view of this, we agree with the counsel for the assessee that as far as the synthetic gems are concerned the exemption is total and the combined effect of the exemption together with the provision in section 5A, for all practical purposes, is to hold that the sale of the synthetic gems is not liable to tax under the Act or is under circumstances under which no tax is payable. Being of this view, the contrary conclusion taken by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained. We allow these tax revision cases and set aside the orders of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 209 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not be included in the sales turnover of the assessee for purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act. Before a particular amount can be included in the turnover of an assessee for the purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act, it must be the sale price received by the dealer in respect of the sales of goods see section 2(j) of the Act . As the purchases have been made by the assessee of gunny bags acting as an agent of the ex-U.P. principals, the sale of bardana was by the supplier to the ex-U.P. principals, for which the supplier received the price. The sale price could not, as such, be included in the turnover of the assessee. As there was no sale of gunny bags by the assessee, no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act could be imposed. The question referred is answered by saying that the supply of bardana to the ex-U.P. principals would not amount to inter-State sales. As none has appeared on behalf of the assessee there has been no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (8) TMI 208 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ellate authority. Any fault of the assessing authority in endorsing the cheque cannot be made a ground for penalising the assessee by dismissing the appeal. However, as there is no clear finding as to whether the cheque was dishonoured on account of any mistake of the assessee or of the department, the Judge (Revisions) was in error in holding that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-payment of the admitted tax. In case the cheque was dishonoured on account of faulty endorsement by the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee having given the cheque within time, he was, in law, deemed to have deposited the admitted tax at the time of filing the appeal. The question is answered by saying that the cheque drawn by the assessee should be treated as valid payment of the admitted tax in case it was dishonoured on account of any mistake on the part of the department, but not otherwise. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (8) TMI 207 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the Webster s 3rd New International Dictionary, means something that is brought forth or yielded either naturally or as a result of effort or work. Kulfi is not yielded naturally from milk, but is produced as a result of evaporating the milk to a certain extent till it becomes viscid, and the addition of sugar, dry fruits and essence. Dry fruits, sugar and essence are added to give sweetness and flavour to the viscid milk and form a very small constituent of kulfi. The main constituent is milk. Thus, kulfi is nothing else but a milk product and is exempt from tax under both the notifications. The first question is answered by saying that kulfi is not a cooked food and the second that kulfi is a milk product and is exempt under the notification dated 31st March, 1956. Answer to the third question is that kulfi is not taxable under the notification dated 16th February, 1965. The assessee is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (8) TMI 206 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is not attacked by any of the agents that corrode metals or organic materials. Earthenware is described as the first kind of pottery, and jars made of fired clay are shown to be included within the description of pottery. This meaning and description of pottery also reinforces the above conclusion reached on the basis of the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word crockery . 9.. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that jars (jarni) of the above type do not fall within the description of goods all types of crockery and accordingly within the ambit of entry 26, Part II of Schedule II of the Act. The first question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the dealer. In view of our answer to the first question, the second question does not arise. 10.. The reference is answered accordingly. Since none has appeared for the dealer, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
........
|
