|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 236 Records
-
1985 (8) TMI 345 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uding that proceedings under section 21 have been started by the Sales Tax Officer against him, and they have been adjourned to 17th March, 1962, on which date he should put in appearance. As is apparent from the order sheet, the assessee did put in appearance and objected to the proceedings both on facts and law. This being so, the notice of 6th March, 1962, though only intimating the adjourned date of hearing of the proceedings under section 21, can be treated as a notice under section 21. This notice was given before the limitation for making the assessment had expired and as such extended the period of limitation, in view of the proviso (i) to section 21(2) of the Act. The revision is accordingly allowed. The revising authority should decide the case on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the revising authority under section 11(8) of the Act. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 344 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e to give effect to its manifest purpose having a full view of it. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear the courts ought to have no hesitation in giving a common sense interpretation to the machinery sections so that the charge does not fail. We, therefore, affirm the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ramu and Co. v. State of A.P. 1979 43 STC 510 and hold that much ado made about the true meaning to be given to the words during the year occurring in sub-section (1) of section 15 is not warranted either by the obvious object and intendment of the provision or on a reading of section 15 as a whole. The section does not forbid or prohibit the assessing authority from making a provisional assessment on the monthly returns submitted by a dealer in form A-2 and collecting the tax beyond the year of assessment. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 343 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the opinion that the instant sale and purchase is in course of inter-State trade and commerce and is completely covered under section 3(a) of the Act. 16.. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed not to demand and/or realise Bihar sales tax in these kinds of trade and commerce from the writ petitioners. The respondents should refund or adjust it in accordance with law, if some such sale or purchase is found to have been subjected to State tax and the same have been realised from any one of the petitioners. The State Trading Corporation should refund the security amount of the petitioners if held by them on this account and not otherwise required. It is needless to say that the State Trading Corporation had correctly realised earlier Central sales tax from some of the transactions in question. As the cases posed intricate question of law, I refrain from passing any order of costs. Parties to bear their own costs. Writ Petitions allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 342 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commercial Taxes Officer, for, rule 25C(1) and (7) of the Rules were disregarded and further no other evidence except that of the original or duplicate of the declaration in form S.T. 17 could only be considered by the assessing authority. The result is that this application which has been treated as a revision under section 13(1) of the Amendment Act, is allowed and the order dated 30th June, 1971, of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), jodhpur, order dated 16th May, 1978, of the single Member of the Board, order dated 9th February, 1981, of the Division Bench of the Board are set aside and the assessment order dated 30th September, 1970, of the assessing authority is restored in so far as it was held that the sale price of cotton seeds amounting to Rs. 8,056 should be included in the taxable turnover and the tax is leviable at 3 per cent amounting to Rs. 241.68. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the dealer-assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 341 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the additional places of business and warehouses. Thus, we must take it for granted that the petitioner had moved to 2820/17, Gurunanak Auto Market, Kashmere Gate, and the change by issue of a new certificate of registration in form ST-9 was made by the assessing authority. It thus could not be said that the petitioner had no place of business at 2820/17, Gurunanak Auto Market, Kashmere Gate, on the date of the fire. That being the position, the petitioner is entitled to a writ in this case. We accordingly issue a writ directing the respondents-sales tax authorities to act on the basis that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of rule 7(3) and thus the orders of the Sales Tax Commissioner and the Tribunal holding otherwise have to be quashed. The respondents are now directed to give effect to this conclusion by making appropriate changes in the assessment orders on the basis that rule 7(3) does apply to the petitioner. The petitioner will get costs. Petition allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 340 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iron, i.e., geru , is not, covered by entry No. 41 paints and varnishes of Schedule I to the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. It may be stated that this letter (annexure C-2) was with respect to the entry paints and varnishes and the term dye was not included in the said entry and apart from that, the material was geru and not hirmichi. Under these circumstances, this is also of no help to the dealer/assessee. 6.. For the reasons stated herein above, the question referred for our decision in this reference has to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred to this Court is answered in the following manner Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the materials which are used as colouring agent and sold by the assessee, are covered under entry No. 25 of Schedule II-Part II of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1985 (8) TMI 339 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y justification for the Board withholding the payment of the aforesaid sum to the State. Sri Babu prays for one month s time for payment of this sum to the State. We are of the view that this request of Sri Babu is fair and reasonable and we grant the same. 4.. Sri Hegde, in our opinion, very fairly and rightly submits that the respondents will not enforce the demands for the outstanding amounts for a period of ten weeks from this day to enable the petitioner to obtain necessary certified copies and certificate of fitness and move for stay before the Supreme Court. We record this submission of Sri Hegde. In view of this submission of Sri Hegde, we do not consider it necessary to stay the operation of our order in respect of the outstanding amounts. 5.. We need hardly say that all payments made by the petitioner to the respondents will be subject to the orders to be made by the Supreme Court of India. 6.. We dispose of the prayer of the petitioner for stay in the above terms.
-
1985 (8) TMI 338 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pective of this fact whether the process of manufacture was in the State of Madhya Pradesh or outside it. 16.. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it followed that there was no misuse of the declaration in form XII-A by the dealer and the benefit of concessional rate in accordance with section 8(1) of the Act was rightly given by the assessing authority to the dealer and that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as the Tribunal acted contrary to law in taking a contrary view. 17.. Accordingly, the common questions of law referred in both these references are answered as follows (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, proceedings under section 39(2) of the Act were contrary to law and (2) Reading and interpretation of the declaration contained in form XII-A as well as section 8(2) of the Act by the Tribunal was not proper, and the levy of penalty under section 8(2) of the Act was neither lawful nor justified. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 337 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd detention of the second petitioner in civil prison in enforcement of a void order, the first respondent has virtually encroached upon the personal liberty , i.e., the fundamental right enshrined under article 21 of the Constitution. In short, the power of this Court to pass the consequential order is not controlled by section 4(5) of the High Court Act. To put it shortly, if this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 is competent to demolish an illegal order then it follows that this Court is equally competent to pass a consequential order restoring the status quo ante. I am therefore of the view, that the argument that the matter can only be dealt with by a Bench of two Judges is devoid of merit. The same accordingly is rejected. The original petition is allowed. Exhibit P3 accordingly is quashed and I direct the respondents to set the second petitioner free, forthwith. Serve the operative portion of the judgment to the respondents by Special Messenger.
-
1985 (8) TMI 336 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of this Court. 4.. The point involved for decision in the above common question of law is concluded by a decision of this Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh 1981 47 STC 143. It was held only in a similar situation that various States levied and collected from the purchasers formed part of the sale price of the goods sold and, therefore, this amount had to be included in the sale price for computation of the taxable turnover. The view taken by the Tribunal in the present case being the same is justified. These references should, therefore, be answered in favour of the Department. 5.. Consequently, the references are answered in favour of the Department and against the dealer as under The amounts collected separately on despatches of coal by road on account of coal mines welfare cess, stowing duty and rescue cess under the statutory provisions were part of the sale price and liable to sales tax. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 335 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al, but on the point relating to availability of the power under section 19(1) of the Act, which was not within the scope of the appeal and which did not arise for decision by the Tribunal. Since, this is the only basis on which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in doing so. We may also observe that the construction by the Tribunal of section 19(1) of the Act permitting reassessment is contrary to the view taken on this point in two decisions of this Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jeewa Khan 1978 42 STC 95 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Soubhagmal 1979 44 STC 182. 7.. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Department and against the dealer as under The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the orders dated 13th November, 1969 and 12th October, 1970 passed by the assessing authority on reassessment. No costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 334 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stands validated for the late filing of the returns. The view taken by the Board in the revision and the special appeal by its orders dated August 7, 1978 and March 26, 1979 is not correct, in the face of the insertion of sub-section (2A) in section 9 of the CST Act. The penalty was imposable under section 16(1)(c) of the RST Act for not filing the returns within the prescribed time, and that has been validated. The application, which has been treated as a revision, is allowed and the order dated 16th May, 1972 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), order dated 7th August, 1978 passed in revision by the Board and order dated 26th March, 1979 passed in special appeal by the Board are set aside and it is held that the penalty imposed by the order dated 26th October, 1971 passed by the ACTO, Ward A, Pali, stands validated by virtue of the provisions contained in section 9(2A) of the CST Act. As no body has appeared on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der section 22A of the Act read with section 9 of the CST Act impugned in W.P. No. 469 of 1979, the Commissioner has proposed to exclude the turnover of Rs. 7,35,030.42 from the Central sales tax assessment for being considered separately under the local law for purposes of assessment. 24.. Sri Venugopal s attack against this notice is, that the revisional power of the Commissioner is not meant for excluding a turnover but for inclusion. This notice, in his submission, is a misconceived notice and should be set aside. 25.. In my opinion, this notice is only consequential. If the assessment under the KST Act undergoes a modification as proposed, the same turnover cannot be assessed under the CST Act also. Deletion of this turnover from the assessment under the CST Act has to follow if the said turnover is treated as a local sale. It is, therefore, unnecessary to quash the said notice. 26.. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed and the rule issued is discharged.
-
1985 (8) TMI 332 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... ss the account of Shivshankar and Company. He found Shivshankar and Company to be similar to Ganesh Trading Company and Mahavir Trading Company. In his remand report, therefore, he recommended that enhancement be made in the assessee s income in relation also to the account of Shivshankar and Company in the assessee s books of account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner acted upon that recommendation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, went beyond the record when he did so. The remand by him related to specific items. These did not include the account of Shivshankar and Company. It cannot, therefore, be held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was entitled to enhance the income of the assessee in relation to the account in its books of Shivshankar and Company. We answer the assessee s questions thus Question No. 1 In the affirmative. Question No. 2 In the affirmative. We answer the Revenue s question in the negative. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 7,93,837 under s. 10(1) or alternatively under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act in determining its business profits - held that if the amount had been spent for obtaining a capital asset, the assessee would not be entitled to claim it as a deduction under s. 10(1) of the Act and on the principle of taxation that income-tax is to be levied on the real income, the amount paid for obtaining capital asset would not be deductible
-
1985 (8) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT
Whether "meat on hoof" was taxable ?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The transactions that were between the parties were for the "meat" in respect of which the levy of sales tax was sought to be imposed. That cannot be done. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in holding that the transactions in question were subject to sales tax.
-
1985 (8) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee-appellant is liable to be taxed under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the instant case, as already shown, the appellant had from the very beginning taken the stand that its transactions were without any profit-motive. The High Court, in our view, on the materials placed before it, went wrong in dismissing the writ petitions. The legal position being settled as indicated by several decisions of this Court, the writ petitions should have been allowed and the assessments should have been quashed
-
1985 (8) TMI 315 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... and direct the workmen-respondents to refund to the appellant the balance amount of wages in question which they have realised within a period of three months from today. We are told that most of the workmen-respondents are now in the employment of the Corporation. If they fail to refund the amount to the appellant, as directed above, the said amount shall be recovered from their wages in reasonable instalments by the Corporation and paid to the appellant. To afford justice in accordance with law to the workmen-respondents, we direct that the claim applications for the balance amount of wages preferred by them before the Commissioner of Payments, which had been withdrawn, shall stand revived and the Commissioner of Payments shall satisfy the claims of the workmen-respondents in accordance with law out of the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs which he was directed to keep intact, vide interim order dated May 7, 1985, of a Division Bench of this court. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 314 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Appointment of directors and proportion of those who are to retire by rotation, Inter-corporate investment, Spot delivery contract, Stock exchange
-
1985 (8) TMI 298 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... s of the contract such as that the petitioner had not properly packed the same before despatch or sent an engineer for its installation and that in the circumstances, no question of payment of the balance price could arise. The respondent company has also added that the machinery had been badly damaged in transit and that a claim for damage has been lodged with the insurance company but this is denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Here again, no facts have been stated in the petition or even in the rejoinder which would show that the petitioner was indisputably and clearly entitled to the payment of the full purchase price and that too, by the defendant. It seems to me that this is a case in which there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the liability of the respondent company to pay the amount which forms the foundation of the petition. I, therefore, think that this petition should be dismissed and order accordingly. I, however, make no order regarding costs.
........
|
