|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 241 Records
-
1983 (1) TMI 232 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of installation for the purpose of sale or supply of goods by the dealer when such cost is separately charged should also be excluded before reaching his taxable turnover. Thus, the opposite party has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in completely overlooking this amended provision of law which cuts at the root of his logic indicated in the extracted portion of his impugned order. 7.. We would, therefore, quash the impugned order, annexure-3, and would remit the whole matter back to the Sales Tax Officer with a direction that he shall reconsider the whole matter after hearing the counsel for the assessee and also for the department and after taking into express consideration subclause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2)(A) of section 5 of the Act (as inserted by Amendment Act 3 of 1976). The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order for costs. Writ application is allowed. No costs. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1983 (1) TMI 231 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch, 1976, the Sales Tax Officer would have directed service by affixation then probably accepting his explanation in respect of registered notice we might have held service to be sufficient. To satisfy ourselves we looked into the record as well. But we could not find any material on which the notice issued for service on 22nd March, 1976, both under clauses (b) and (d) through the process-server could be held to be valid. As notice under section 21 is jurisdictional, failure to serve it in accordance with law results in rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. The Sales Tax Officer therefore could not have assumed jurisdiction and passed the order. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Notice dated 22nd March, 1976, initiating proceedings under section 21 is quashed. As the proceedings were without jurisdiction the assessment order under section 22 filed as annexure 9 to amendment application is also quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 230 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eration the exemption continues. It has not been pointed out by the learned standing counsel that as a result of the reconstitution of the firm the industrial unit itself underwent alteration and a new unit came into being. If by reconstitution of the firm no new industrial unit came into being the conclusion is inescapable that the unit which started production on 10th January, 1968, was entitled to exemption till 9th January, 1971. Moreover as pointed out above, the letter issued by the State Government dated 14th May, 1972, clinches the matter against the Commissioner of Sales Tax. It can be interpreted, although it is not necessary, as a fresh order from the State Government granting exemption to the new unit from 6th October, 1970, to 9th January, 1971. In either case, the submission made by the learned standing counsel cannot succeed. 3.. The result is that the revision fails and it is dismissed. The assessee shall be entitled to his costs which is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1983 (1) TMI 229 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... but their accessories are also included. The items are definitely accessories to the equipments for generation, distribution and transmission of the electrical energy. In taking this view I am supported by a Division Bench s decision of this Court in the case of Dass Hitachi (Private) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad 1981 48 STC 142 1980 UPTC 1020 wherein it was held that any instrument or equipment, which the distributor of electrical energy requires for carrying out the activity of distributing the electrical energy, will fall within the ambit of the expression electrical equipment required for distribution of electrical energy . It was held that KWH meters manufactured by the petitioner were necessarily used by the distributors while distributing electrical energy to the consumers. The judgment of the Tribunal suffers from no error of law. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 one set.
-
1983 (1) TMI 228 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ur consideration. For the above reasons, the T.R.Cs. are dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 each. Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi says that the Tribunal has remanded some cases to the Deputy Commissioner for further investigation. The investigation or the enquiry, as the case may be, shall be done in the light of the orders of the Tribunal and the principles enunciated in this decision. Before parting with this case, we feel constrained to make the following observation If the object of the 1971 amendment was to benefit the weavers, master-weavers co-operative societies or other recognised associations of weavers, the proper course would have been to levy the tax upon the last purchase and then issue an exemption notification under section 9 of the Act exempting the weavers from the exigibility to tax. Such a course would not only have served the State s purpose but would have also helped the weavers, besides serving to remove a good amount of uncertainty pointed out above.
-
1983 (1) TMI 227 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt. But for claiming this concessional rate, the dealer selling the goods has to furnish to the assessing authority, in the prescribed manner, a declaration duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold, containing the prescribed particulars and in the prescribed form. Rule 30-A requires such declaration to be furnished along with the return. In this case admittedly these declarations are not filed by the petitioners along with their returns, or latter. Indeed, the Rules do not contain any provision for the furnishing of those declarations at any point of time subsequent to the making of the assessment. We are therefore unable to say that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to concessional rate under section 5-B on the ground that they have not furnished the prescribed declarations within the prescribed time. For the above reasons, the T.R.Cs. fail and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each.
-
1983 (1) TMI 226 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interpretation of statute - before imposing penalty the authority has to give notice under Section 54 (1) and to record a finding either on the basis of material before it, or produced by the dealer, or any other person, or the department and which may include incomplete Form 38, (which may be a ground for seizure of the goods), that there was an intention to evade the payment of tax.
-
1983 (1) TMI 225 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecting the account books was that the assessee had deliberately under-estimated the capacity at 3,50,000 bricks whereas it was 4,50,000 bricks as found by the Survey Officer who visited the kiln on 10th October, 1977. The Tribunal held that the capacity was under-estimated with a view to suppress the sales. No actual suppression of sales has been found. In the circumstance a presumption cannot be raised that the assessee deliberately under-estimated the capacity of his kiln. The Tribunal, while rejecting the account books of the assessee, held that the account books could not be implicitly relied upon. It has not clearly rejected the account books. In the circumstances, the revision has to be allowed. In the result, the revision is allowed, the account books of the assessee shall be accepted and the assessee to be taxed accordingly. The papers will go back to the Tribunal under section 11(8) of the Sales Tax Act to make appropriate orders. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 224 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ods by the assessee to the head office. Further there was no contract of sale for pumpsets and the pumpsets were a part of the goods sold. There is a further finding that the goods were assembled in Delhi and the title passed to the buyer in Delhi. In this view of the matter, the assessee is not liable to pay Central sales tax on the pumpsets, the sales of which has been assessed at Rs. 8,91,100. As far as item No. 2 which relates to the sale of spare parts amounting to Rs. 31,395, there is no error in the judgment of the Tribunal. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay Central sales tax on the so-called sales of pumpsets amounting to Rs. 8,91,100 but the revision is dismissed in so far as the assessee questions the assessment of Central sales tax on the spare parts amounting to Rs. 31,395. The papers will go back to the Tribunal under section 11(8) to make appropriate orders. The parties will bear their own costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 223 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... slature had barred an appeal against any proceedings under section 13-A. Subsequently, the legislature has permitted appeals in cases other than the cases where action is taken under sub-section (1) of section 13-A. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in holding that an appeal lay to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). As regards the reduction in the amount of security demanded, the Tribunal was of the view that it was doubtful that the penalty could be imposed because the authorities have not examined the accounts of the dealer immediately or even on September 13 and 14 and entries of all the goods were found to have been entered in the books of the dealer. In view of the finding, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The learned standing counsel is unable to show any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in regard to the security demanded. In the result, the revision is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1983 (1) TMI 222 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee s case was that the said firm was refusing to give the said form because there was a dispute between the assessee and the said firm. In view of the fact that the assessee had furnished a certificate of the assessing authority of the firm M/s. Prakash Chandra Ram Dutt, showing that the said firm had paid tax on the purchases of this amount of foodgrains, the assessee would be entitled to an exemption as provided under section 3-D(1). In the circumstances the revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the papers will go back to the Tribunal under section 11(8) to make appropriate order. The assessee is entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1983 (1) TMI 221 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roof. Another fact worthy of note in this case is that the Tribunal has not based its finding upon the alleged failure of the petitioner nor on the adverse presumption. On the contrary the Tribunal has sought to base its finding upon the correspondence available with it, which, as we have already stated, does in no manner suggest or support such a finding. In such a case, the department cannot seek to sustain the finding of the Tribunal on a basis not stated by the Tribunal itself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner was the last purchaser of the manganese ore within the State of Andhra Pradesh is based on no evidence and that the failure or refusal of the petitioner to produce the documents or material relevant to the purchase of the ore from the Tumsar party, cannot be treated as a complete substitute for such absence of material. Accordingly the T.R.C. is allowed, but in the circumstances no costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 300.
-
1983 (1) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cent free fatty acids and 16 per cent acid-value and could not be declared as inedible oil even according to the standards laid in letter dated 4th February, 1982, of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner (annexure P-2). There is no sufficient material on the file to decide the question as to whether rice bran oil sold by the petitioner-firm was edible oil or inedible oil. Even the constituents of the oil have not been brought out on the file by the parties. It is not disclosed as to which component or components of the rice bran oil, individually or collectively, is/are inedible or makes/make the whole oil inedible. So, this question could not be decided on the meagre data, which is available. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge this point before the Assessing Authority, if and when the occasion arises. For the foregoing reasons I allow this writ petition and quash paragraph 3 of the notice dated 23rd December, 1981 (copy of which is annexure P-3). No costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 219 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oticed earlier, the tenor of the order in Civil Writ Petition No. 2170 of 1982 is rather to the effect that the customers do not take away the food. In Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Simla v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Simla 1966 17 STC 555 AIR 1966 Punj 449, it was held that burden of proving that supply of food amounted to sale, was on the revenue. Mr. Bishnoi further argued that according to section 14 of the Act onus to establish that the sale is exempt from sales tax is on the assessee. This provision is also of no help to Mr. Bishnoi. The case of the petitioners here is that the transaction of serving food along with other services in a restaurant is not a sale. Section 14 of the Act will be applicable only if it is held that its activities amounted to sale. For the foregoing reasons, I allow these writ petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2054 and 2170 of 1982) and quash the notices issued to the petitioners and the assessment orders passed against them. No costs.
-
1983 (1) TMI 218 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plea that the second respondent had no jurisdiction, Shri B.V. Katageri, contends that this Court should interfere and strike down that demand and the assessment order in so far as it relates to levy of tax under the Act. I do not find any substance in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no inherent lack of jurisdiction for the second respondent-Additional Commercial Tax Officer to pass the impugned order in question. If he has erred either on fact or on law the same can be corrected by the appellate authority. Thereafter, second appeal lies to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal from the order of the appellate authority. There is a revision also provided for under section 23 of the Act to this Court. Without exhausting the more efficacious remedies that are available to the petitioner under the Act, this is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
-
1983 (1) TMI 217 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... B . Such a situation arises only when a company is in a position to nominate a certain number of directors or control the election of a certain number of directors in the other company. It is only in such a case that the former company can be said to control the total membership or a part of the membership of the board of directors of the latter company. No such case is made out in clause (d) of the aforesaid paragraph. This contention of Mr. Rao must also be rejected. Although some allegations are made in clauses (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 of the said affidavit of Surendra Kumar, no contention has been raised before me on the basis of those allegations and it is wholly unnecessary for me to consider the contentions set out in the said clauses. In the result, in Company Petition No. 684 of 1981, there will be an order in terms of prayers (a) to (e) of the petition, and in Company Petition No. 685 of 1981, there will be an order in terms of prayers (a) to (d) of the petition.
-
1983 (1) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT
Oppression & Mismanagement - Held that:- Allow this appeal and set aside the order dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellants in limine by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and remit the case to the appellate Bench for disposal of the same according to law.
-
1983 (1) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the prosecution had established that smuggled gold bars had been seized from the respondent on August 9, 1969, at the Trichur Railway Station under Ex. P-l?
Held that:-Appeal allowed. In, the instant case, the respondent had not discharged the burden which lay on him. P.W.1 has stated that the said gold-bars had foreign markings on them and Ex. P-1, the mahazar, corroborated his statement. The respondent had no authorisation to keep the said gold with him. It is in evidence that the said gold bars were found packed in paper and kept in the inside folds of a blanket underneath some clothes in the trunk seized from the respondent. He had taken care to secrete them. He had brought them from Bombay which was a customs area. In the circumstances, his explanation that he had no knowledge that he was in possession of or carrying smuggled gold bars could not be believed, as rightly held by the learned sessions judge. The prosecution had clearly established the guilt of the respondent. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The conviction of the respondent and the sentence imposed on him by the learned District Magistrate which were affirmed on appeal by the learned sessions judge are restored.
-
1983 (1) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machines - Reassessment at concessional rate ... ... ... ... ..... those parts which, on merits, would be assessable under different Tariff Heading but which are required for initial assembly/ manufacture of machinery falling under the Tariff Heading specified in the said Notification. Shri Subramanian further stated that the DGTD Certificate covers only 40 Nos. of Winding Temperature Indicators as against 50 Nos. imported by the Appellants. He, therefore, limited his appeal only for 40 Nos. of Winding Temperature Indicators which are covered by DGTD Certificate. The Departmental Representative agreed that the re-assessment of the goods in question in terms of Notification No. 37/79 should be made but should be restricted to 40 Nos. of Winding Temperature Indicators which are covered by the DGTD Certificate. The Bench has carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties. In view of the DGTD Certificate and End-Use Certificate and other documents produced, the appeal to the extent of goods covered by DGTD Certificate is allowed.
-
1983 (1) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drawback claim rejected by wrong order ... ... ... ... ..... as also intimated to the Superintendent of Customs by the firm. Thereafter, an order, dated 21-5-81 was issued by the Appellate Collector rejecting the appeal because the records did not reveal any request for amending the Bill of Export and the party had failed to produce details of supply for a brand rate of drawback. 3. emsp It was pleaded that there is no fault on the part of the appellant and the department mixed up the papers, leading to issue of a wrong order, which should be nullified. 4. emsp Shri S. Kampani, junior Departmental Representative, on going through the original documents available with the appellants, agreed that there had been an inadvertence, as stated by them. 5. emsp In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. On the analogy of the order, dated 30-8-1978 in the parallel case by the Appellate Collector, the Tribunal directs that the appellants be allowed to amend the Bill of Export for claiming drawback under serial No. 4401 of the Drawback Schedule.
........
|
