|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 285 Records
-
1993 (2) TMI 306 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sought adjournment on three consecutive dates and finally his own affidavit is a clear indication of the earnestness on the part of the learned counsel for the applicant to prosecute the appeal and to be present at the time of hearing. Since he fell ill on the last adjournment date, his absence on the last date could not be said to be unjustified. The result is that the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated December 16, 1992 and August 27/28, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal are hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for disposing of the two appeals on merits, after hearing both the parties. The parties shall appear thereon on March 15, 1993. In case the applicant fails to appear before the Tribunal on March 15, 1993 this order shall stand automatically vacated. The Tribunal shall be free not to grant more than one adjournment to the applicant. With these directions the revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 305 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner, Agricultural income-tax (respondent No. 2) had prior to his order conducted a local personal inspection of the premises during the first week of December, 1991 and satisfied himself as to the veracity of the survey report considered against the claim of the applicants according to the blue print submitted by them. It cannot, therefore, be held that their claim had not been at all taken into consideration or that no speaking order had been passed and arbitrary decision taken. There does not, therefore, seem to be any ground for us to discard the measurement of the department on the basis of which assessment has been made. 13.. In view of all the above, the application fails and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 14.. The application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. The interim orders passed on August 20, 1992 would stand vacated. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. S.N. MUKHERJEE (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 304 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 000 ordered to be refunded in appeal by the learned Assistant Director of Entry Tax, respondent No. 2, cannot be allowed under the provisions of section 19(3) of the Act of 1972 or rule 25 of the Entry Tax Rules it is not necessary for us to refer to those decisions highlighting fair and equitable justice even in the field of taxation. 11.. In the result, the application is allowed. The order dated September 13, 1991 passed by the Superintendent, Claims and Refund, Entry Tax, respondent No. 1, refusing to refund a sum of Rs. 72,000 to the applicant is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 72,000 to the applicant within sixty days from this date. In the circumstances of the case we think it is a fit case to award costs against the respondents. We assess it at Rs. 1,000 and direct that the costs shall also be paid within sixty days from this date. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 303 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te may be a warning to the assessing authority to see to the accounts more carefully and to find out whether there is any material to lead him to the conclusion that there is something wrong in the account books. It does not appear that the challans, bill books and cash memos maintained by the assessee were put to cross tests. There is no finding that the assessee had not recorded full consideration for which he sold its products. In the absence of any such finding, the returned turnover which was based on the account books maintained in due course, could not have been discarded as has been done in the instant case. Assuming that the average selling rate per thousand bricks was low, the book version, in my opinion, could not have been rejected on that ground because the low selling rate is not a defect in the account books. For what has been stated above, the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the result, the revision is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 302 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has rightly applied correct principles of law in sustaining the levy of penalties under sections 45(2)(c) and 45(6) of the Sales Tax Act. Hence, question No. 7 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 1989 In the result, we answer questions Nos. 1 to 6 in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and questions Nos. 7 and 8 in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards question No. 9, the Tribunal has to decide it on merits in accordance with law. Reference is dis posed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Sales Tax Reference No. 14 of 1989 In the result, we answer questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1993 (2) TMI 301 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... licant can be said to be in any way perverse. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence in detail which was produced before the sales tax authorities and has appreciated various statements made by the applicant. The Tribunal has also relied upon the verification made by the Inspector of Industries who had found the details shown in the statement to be correct. In our view, considering the reasons given by the Tribunal in its judgment and order dated June 8, 1983, the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and, therefore, it cannot be said that appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal based on seized item No. 12 regarding purchases of coal by the applicant is in any way perverse or unreasonable. In a case where on appreciation of evidence other view is possible, it would not be a ground for holding that the order is perverse. In the result, the question is answered in the negative. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 300 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oods should be as a result of an integral part of the contract of sale that the goods should cross the border from one State to another it is not enough that the buyer takes delivery of the goods from the seller for the purposes of despatching them to another State, nor is it enough that the seller pursuant to the instructions of the buyer despatches the goods across the border to another State. The contract of sale must itself provide as an integral part of it that the goods shall be transported from one State to another. 10.. In view of the above principles, we are of the view that the Revenue has not proved that the movement of the goods in the instant case was occasioned by the sale but the despatch was subsequent to the sale and either the goods were taken by the purchaser or they were despatched by the seller-petitioner as per the instructions of the purchaser subsequent to the completion of the sale. 11.. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 299 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the element of mens rea was not relevant. The view of the Tribunal is erroneous in law. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that form XXXI was produced. Form XXXI was taken earlier before transportation of goods and if for some reason driver could not present form XXXI at the check-post it would not be taken that there was any violation of provision of section 28-A(2) of the Act. The explanation was given and that fully justified the claim of the applicant that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax. The assessee can always give explanation for non-production of form XXXI at the check-post and if such explanation clearly indicates that he had no oblique motive or any intention to evade payment of tax such a transporter cannot be made liable to pay penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the respondents are set aside. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 298 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... e Government had no authority to levy tax on gudakhu or gurakhu , the collection was illegal and accordingly, the Government have to compensate the assessee in respect of the money which is being enjoyed wrongfully by the Government so long. Let the State respondents act in accordance with the directions contained in this order within two months from the date of communication of this order. Mr. Dutta has submitted that he did not have any opportunity to verify, whether the amounts mentioned hereinbefore are correct or not. In that view of the matter, before making any refund the State respondents will look into the challans or any other documents in support of the payment made which shall be produced by the respondent/writ petitioner before the appropriate authority. The application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. All parties concerned to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (2) TMI 297 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... second question will therefore have to be answered accordingly, and so far as the third question is concerned, the applicant would not be justified in claiming the amount of tax remitted by him. 11.. In view of our aforesaid answers to question No. 2, it is not necessary to answer question No. 1 as it is widely worded and Mr. Pathak also concedes that it would not be necessary to answer question No. 1. 12.. We, therefore, hold that the final order of the assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer in contravention of section 46A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, was not void ab initio, but merely an irregular order and that the applicant was not justified in claiming refund of the amount of tax remitted by him. We do not think it necessary to answer question No. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1993 (2) TMI 296 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. We hold so. 6.. With regard to the power of the State Legislature to enact the law retrospectively and the test to be applied to find whether it is reasonable, it is only sufficient to refer to two Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar 1963 50 ITR 171 (SC) AIR 1963 SC 1667 paragraphs 10 to 20, and the decision in Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam AIR 1964 SC 925 at page 941 paragraph 45. In the light of the above decisions by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it is idle to contend that in giving retrospectivity to Finance Act, 1987 (18 of 1987), the Legislature overstepped its limits or that the legislation is in any way unreasonable or makes any inroad into the petitioner s fundamental or other rights. The plea is a far cry. No other point was raised in this revision. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed with costs including advocate s fee Rs. 2,000. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 295 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion in that case. On a perusal of the impugned order and the orders of the authorities below we are of the view that the maximum penalty stipulated in section 29A(4) of the Act was levied in a mechanical manner without independent evaluation and appraisal. The levy of the maximum penalty therefore, appears to be unreasonable and irrational. The reason given by the Appellate Tribunal that the penalty authorised under section 29A(4) is different from the penalty liable to be imposed under the other penal provisions of the Act is unsustainable. In the light of the decision of this Bench in Sudhi s case 1992 85 STC 337 the imposition of penalty is not justified. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in sustaining the order of the penalty imposed under section 29A(4) of the Act. The order of the Tribunal has, therefore, to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed and the order of the Tribunal upholding the imposition of penalty is set aside. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 294 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t consider that the matter requires reconsideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the reliance placed by the Division Bench in T.R.C. No. 18 of 1980 on Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1960 11 STC 827 (SC) was not correct, inasmuch as, that was a matter in which the court was considering the conversion of groundnut oil into hydrogenated oil, and held that both the products serve the same purpose, whereas in the present case, liquid molasses and muddagur are not of the same nature and do not serve the same purpose. We are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that muddagur which is in a solid form is also found to be fit for being used for the purpose of making alcohol and also as cattle fodder and is not fit for human consumption and cannot be treated as jaggery. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these two revision cases and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 293 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lam and Sons 1975 36 STC 254 a Division Bench of this Court held that lime is not a heavy chemical. That was a case prior to the amendment of entry 79 of the Second Schedule. At the relevant point of time governing the said case, entry 79 referred to heavy chemicals only. A learned single Judge of this Court also had an occasion to deal with this aspect of the matter in Yarana Feeds and Farms v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1990 77 STC 144. It was held therein that the articles could not be taxed depending upon its user in individual cases. In view of the above, we are not persuaded to accept the submission of the appellant that lime should be treated as a pesticide for the purpose of taxation merely because it was used as such by the purchasers or consumers. There is a specific entry covering the chemicals of all kinds within which lime would be covered, because, normally, lime is considered as a chemical. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 292 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... four questions formulated for decision by this Court, question No. 1 relates to the inclusion of sale proceeds of motor car and purchase turnover of cinnamon leaves in the taxable turnover of the assessee. We have remitted this matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. Questions 2 to 4 are regarding the question as to whether the forwarding charges will form part of the taxable turnover of the assessee. On questions 2 to 4, we have already held that the agreement pleaded was found not to be genuine and no service was rendered by the assessee to M/s. Michaels. Questions 2 to 4 are answered against the assessee. All the said aspects posed for consideration are covered by our answer accepting the finding of fact entered by the Tribunal. 7.. The tax revision case is allowed in part. On the first question, the matter is remitted to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has not pressed the question as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the determination of sale price of the goods supplied by the applicant was outside purview of section 62 of the Sales Tax Act as the said question is already determined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat reported in 1991 83 STC 309. In any case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the question cannot be entertained at the appellate proceedings because it was not canvassed before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Further, such question cannot be determined under section 62 of the Sales Tax Act by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 290 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se to some extent. Therefore, presuming that side strips are known as side strips and not metallic yarn, it would not make any difference for interpreting comprehensive entry which includes all other yarns not specified elsewhere in other entries. It is admitted that except entry 21 there is no other entry which deals with synthetic fibres and yarns. Hence, considering the facts which are brought on record by the applicant, in our view, it would be apparent that side strips which are produced by the applicant would be covered by the phrase and all other synthetic fibres and synthetic yarns of entry 21. In the result, we hold that the Tribunal erred in holding that side strips sold by the applicant were not covered by entry 21 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. Question reframed and answered in the negative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 289 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld not mean that, condensate is treated and, therefore, it would not be covered by entry 54. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly found that, where the petroleum that comes out from the well with dominantly liquid containing less gas, such well is known as oil well, while where petroleum comes out with more gas and less liquid, the well is known as gas well (wet gas or dry gas) but so far as the substance is concerned, it is hydrocarbon from which various petroleum products are being obtained after refining. But there is no question of refinement or otherwise treating the condensate for obtaining it. 16.. In the result, we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that condensate is covered by entry 54 of Schedule II, Part A to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and not by the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the said Act. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us, for our decision, in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 288 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctional test or the test of predominant user, and there is no reason to exclude detergent soap from the meaning of the term soap . 12.. Perhaps the Tribunal itself was conscious about this aspect and while considering the question whether penalty should be imposed, the Tribunal was of the view that the distinction between a soap and a detergent is a fine one and when both those commodities had practically the same use one was likely to be misled in treating both of them at par with each other. We have, therefore, no doubt that the product manufactured and sold by the applicant-dealer would be covered by the entry 34 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and not under residuary entry 13 of Schedule III thereof. 13.. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the negative, and against the Revenue. In that view of the matter the question No. 1 does not survive and is not answered. 14.. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1993 (2) TMI 287 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods within the State. Therefore, it cannot be said that the breach was committed because of misunderstanding, and because of the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Wood Polymer Ltd. 1982 50 STC 229 (Guj) which was in connection with an entry which did not contain the words which shall not take place outside the State of Gujarat . The Tribunal, however, reduced the penalty to only half of what was levied by the sales tax authority on the ground that there might be some scope of misunderstanding on the part of the dealer. We do not think that there is any scope for reducing the penalty in view of the language of section 45(5) and section 45(6) of the Act. The question No. 3, therefore, will have to be answered in the negative. 14.. The result is that questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the negative, and in favour of the Revenue question No. 2 is not pressed. 15.. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.
........
|
