|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 285 Records
-
1993 (2) TMI 286 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erate delay. It was ruled that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when the delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. There is no presumption that the delay is occasioned deliberately on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fades. On consideration of facts obtaining in the case and the material that existed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee had made out sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. There was no lack of bona fide on his part nor any laches, could be attributed to him. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned. The view taken to the contrary by the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 285 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tention of the assessee in that case in regard to financial stringency. It is evident from the aforesaid authorities that the discretion allowed by the statute to the appellate authority is to be exercised reasonably, objectively and equitably. It must show application of mind that the matter is dealt with fairly, rationally and not arbitrarily or vaguely. As in the instant case the Sales Tax Tribunal has not dealt with the question in its correct perspective, there is no option but to set aside the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal for its fresh consideration. Consequently, the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with a direction to the Tribunal that it shall restore the appeals giving rise to these revisions to their original number and shall decide the same again in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. In the result, the revisions succeed and are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 284 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot partake any character of machinery nor can it be considered as an addition for use or functioning of the processing plant. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Dani v. State of Karnataka 1979 44 STC 276 laying down that the trailer is neither a machinery nor accessory of machinery. 16.. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of two-side open wooden industrial trolley by the applicant to M/s. Jyoti Processors as per its sale bill dated September 4, 1982 would be covered under the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III and not under entry 16(1) of Schedule II, Part A of the Act, nor under entry 36 of the Schedule appended to the Government notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act. 17.. The reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 283 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m pursuant to revisional order. He had no other jurisdiction to exercise either under any statutory provision or any other supposed inherent authority. 10.. Dealing with similar facts and the question involved in this case, in the case of Chittarmal Narain Dass 1969 24 STC 451 (All.), Pathak, J., has held that here it cannot be said that the remand order directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment and left it open to him to redetermine the entire turnover of the assessee . Similar view has been taken in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Babu Lal Parmanand reported in 1982 49 STC 181 (All.). 11.. In view of the discussions made above both the questions referred to this Court are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee with cost assessed at Rs. 1,000 payable by the assessee to the State. 12.. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. AFTAB ALAM, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 282 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one day s inspection where the suppressed sales could be detected, estimate could be made for the whole year. 2.. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Padmavathi Paddy and Rice Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1971 27 STC 30 for the proposition that some other evidence is required in addition to what was found on a day s inspection, is of no avail for two reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court s decision (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 1973 32 STC 77) on the point squarely applies to the case on hand and it has to be followed, and secondly on the ground that there is additional evidence, as indicated above, from which it could be inferred that Rs. 3,600 found on the night of inspection represented suppressed sales. 3.. For all the above reasons, therefore, no case is made out for our interference in this revision. The revision case is, therefore, rejected. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 281 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s liabilities, and refund, if any, will be given as early as possible. 14.. The question No. (1) as reframed will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue while question No. (2) as reframed will be answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee. So far as the third question is concerned, when adjustment will be given to the amount paid by way of sales tax to the Government in respect of the same turnover, the Tribunal will have to determine the amount of penalty, if any, which will have to be borne by the applicant after the necessary calculation. In that view of the matter the second part of question No. (3) does not survive. 15.. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. 16.. The statement containing the signatures of Chief Accountant of Suhrid Geigy Ltd. as well as the learned advocate for the applicant and the State of Gujarat, will be taken as part of the record. Questions reframed and answered accordingly.
-
1993 (2) TMI 280 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the case that the entire goods were transferred. Therefore, on the quantum of goods transferred that would constitute infraction of law, penalty can be levied and in that view of the matter, the quantification made is also erroneous even if it is held that penalty has been rightly levied in exercise of power under section 10-A of the Act and, therefore, for quantification also, the matter requires redetermination. 11.. In the aforesaid premises, we quash the orders under annexures 8 and 11 and remit the matter to the assessing officer for redetermination bearing in mind the observations and conclusions made by us in this judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The assessee is directed to appear before the assessing officer on March 1, 1993, on which date he shall intimate the further date of hearing and proceed in accordance with law. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1993 (2) TMI 279 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the legislature of a State is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the State ?
Held that:- The Gujarat Legislature is not competent to regulate, modify or extinguish the obligations and liabilities incurred by a ’relief undertaking’ (declared as such under Section 3 of the Bombay Act) outside the State of Gujarat nor can it suspend or stay the suit or other proceedings relating to such obligations and liabilities. Section 4(1)(a)(iv) is not effective to suspend the plaintiff-appellant’s right to money nor can it operate to stay the proceedings in the present suit in the Bombay Court. If and when any execution is levied within the State of Gujarat and/or against the properties of the relief undertaking situated within the State of Gujarat, they can be interdicted by the said notification read with Section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Act, as held by this Court in Binod mills [1987 (5) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT]. Allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
-
1993 (2) TMI 278 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... relate. The proviso to rule 21(13) empowers the assessing authority to follow the procedure in rule 18 to determine the turnover to the best of its judgment and finally assess under a single order the tax or taxes payable under section 5 or notified under section 10, if the returns filed appear to it to be incorrect or incomplete. Thus, from a reading of proviso it can be seen that the procedure prescribed in rule 18 can be followed by the assessing authority even in a case where a dealer has opted procedure under rule 21. In view of rule 18(5), contention of the petitioner that the respondent has no jurisdiction in issuing exhibit P2 notice calling upon him to produce the books of account cannot be sustained. Merely because petitioner has chosen to file monthly returns, he cannot keep the books of account from being inspected by the respondent. Petitioner has not made out a case to quash exhibits P-2, P-4, P-7 and P-9. The original petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 277 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of soil and not as a fertilizer. It is proved from the references noticed above that gypsum is also used in the fields as a direct fertilizer where other fertilizers, such as superphosphate or sulphur in elementary form or otherwise are not available or the nature of soil so requires. It is, however, made clear that we may not be understood to mean that sale of all gypsum falls under entry No. 27 of Schedule B attached to the Act. The sale of such gypsum made to farmers or co-operative societies, dealing with the sale of fertilizers and sold to farmers and co-operative societies of farmers will be tax-free under entry No. 27 of Schedule B ibid, it being used and understood in common parlance as a fertilizer. For the reasons aforesaid, the question referred for the opinion of this Court is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. The parties will, however, bear their own costs as the question was not free from doubt. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (2) TMI 276 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 57 of the Act after a period of five years in respect of the orders regarding set-off allowed by the Sales Tax Officer in the years 1972 and 1973. Regarding the additional amount of set-off allowed by the Sales Tax Officer by his subsequent order dated October 11, 1977, it might be open to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his powers of revision, but in view of the conclusion we have arrived at, the orders of set-off passed by the Sales Tax Officer, would be confirmed on merits. 12.. The result is that, question No. 1 is partly answered in the negative, in so far as the exercise of revisional powers by the Deputy Commissioner under section 57 of the Act in relation to the set-off already allowed by the Sales Tax Officer in the years 1972 and 1973 was concerned. Question No. 2 which is the main question is answered in the negative, and in favour of the assessee. 13.. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1993 (2) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... be dismissed. 8. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocates S/Sh. G.S. Bhangoo and K.K. Anand. Benefit of notification, as urged, 85/79 and 46/81 is available to any premises which is employing less than 10 workers. Therefore this benefit has been correctly accorded by the adjudicating authority and this cannot be challenged on the ground that the two units are one and the same. Apart from the foregoing we are also of the view that there is no sufficient evidence that the two units are one and the same or that Panesar Bros. was a dummy or a shadow or extension of Engineering Works. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is therefore rejected. Cross-objections are also not maintainable since the respondents have been given complete relief by the adjudicating authority. 9. emsp Appeal is thus dismissed and cross-objections are also dismissed as non-maintainable.
-
1993 (2) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the three year time prescribed under section 22 of the Act is directory and is intended to cover the overtaking of the jurisdiction by the concerned authority?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The application for rectification was made by the State Government on March 9, 1973. The application having been made beyond the period of three years the question of applicability of section 22 did not arise. The learned counsel for the State Government has, however, contended that the dates mentioned in the judgment of the High Court are not correct. According to the learned counsel the application for rectification was made on March 9, 1972 and not on March 9, 1973. We have no material before us to support the factual contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Even otherwise the amount involved is very small and the assessment relates to the year 1964-65.
-
1993 (2) TMI 269 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... cted the payment of interest. The language of section 392(1)(b) of the Act looks to us to be quite wide and vests an equitable power in the court to be exercised appropriately depending upon the circumstances of the case. When a creditor has been deprived of the possession of the money due to him, it is equitable that he should be compensated by an appropriate interest for the said period. The learned company judge had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1963 33 Comp. Cas. 513 AIR 1963 SC 1171, and held that the court had such a power in equity. We are in full agreement with the said view taken by the learned company judge. The court has awarded interest only from the date of the application and that too at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. No principle of equity would deny such an interest payable to the creditor, Consequently, we find no merit in these appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1993 (2) TMI 268 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the agreement or any person claiming under him in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may apply therein for stay of the proceedings. It would be seen from the above provision that the legal proceeding which can be stayed should be a proceeding in respect of any matter agreed to be referred. The expression any matter agreed to be referred makes it clear that, unless the matter has been agreed to be referred, the proceeding cannot be stayed, even though it may incidentally have a bearing upon the contract providing for arbitration. In the instant case, it cannot, by any stretch of reason, be said that the parties contemplated that any reference to arbitration for winding up the applicant-company was possible or could be done by an arbitrator. In that view, I think, the company petition is not liable to be stayed. The application is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (2) TMI 267 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... It is needless to say that no litigant can be permitted to play fast and loose with the court. The petitioners through their counsel have undertaken to this court to abide by all directions in implementation of the said decision. There is no legal impediment in implementing the said decision and/or parties performing their respective obligations thereunder. In the circumstances the judge s summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F). Since the second respondent has committed more than two defaults in payment of instalment amounts on their respective due dates mentioned in clause 4 of the said decision, the whole of the said sum of Rs. 4 crores and interest thereon thereunder has become payable to the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case there shall, however, be no order as to costs of the judge s summons. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Shah apply for stay of the operation of the order. Application is refused. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
1993 (2) TMI 261 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Custody of company’s property, Winding up – Overriding preferential payments
-
1993 (2) TMI 260 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... nstituted for one reason or the other. The matter is pending before the BIFR and efforts are under way to revive the company. I do not feel it necessary to burden this order with greater details, in view of the earlier order dated August 24, 1990, passed by this court, in which, necessary reasons and details have been given. The position continues to be the same I am therefore, of the opinion that in the circumstances, it is not possible or the non-petitioners to discharge the statutory obligations and it will be in the public interest to relive the present and existing directors elected or nominated and or directors to discharge their duties under the Rules. Consequently, this application is allowed and the directors and ex-directors named in the application are relived from the duty, for negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust against any officer of the company if any, in respect of the affairs of the company for a period of two years from today.
-
1993 (2) TMI 259 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Payment for exported goods, Application of Customs Act ... ... ... ... ..... within the prescribed period, it must be held that there was no contravention of section 18(2) and section 18(3) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that the facts disclosed in the show-cause notice do not substantiate the charge of contravention of sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the said Act the show-cause notices issued by the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are, therefore, without jurisdiction. In the result, the appeals succeed and the orders under appeal are set aside and quashed. It is stated that the amounts of penalty had been deposited with the Enforcement Directorate. The Enforcement Directorate shall refund the amounts of penalty so deposited within four weeks from date of communication of the operative part of this judgment and order. All parties including the Enforcement Directorate to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the minutes of this judgment/order on the usual undertaking. Shyamal Kumar Sen J. mdash I agree.
-
1993 (2) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
........
|
