|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 422 Records
-
1999 (7) TMI 654 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s of the impugned notices in view of the fact that the applicant did not appear before respondent No. 1 in response to the impugned notices. He also submits that, according to the statute, the deemed assessments are to be reopened in appropriate cases by June 30, 1999. After hearing Mr. Gangopadhyay we quash the orders passed on June 29, 1999 under section 11-E(2) reopening the deemed assessments for the impugned periods. We direct respondent No. 1 to dispose of the proceedings under section 11-E(2) afresh according to law within a period of five weeks from today. 13.. However, if the applicant does not appear before respondent No. 1 on July 13, 1999 and does not make an application for further information as already said, the orders passed by respondent No. 1 under section 11-E(2) on June 29, 1999 will remain intact and will remain in force. 14.. Thus the main applications in RN-209 and RN-210 of 1999 are finally disposed of without any order for costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (7) TMI 653 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is defined to mean to breed and raise an animal for use or market . The definition of manufacture under section 2(j) includes any manner of preparing goods. The preparing of any goods for the market is, therefore, for the purposes of this artificial definition, a process of manufacture. 8.. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the apex Court, it is clear that the making of marble powder by manufacturing process is an activity covered within the special definition of manufacture given in section 2(j) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and, therefore, the opinion of respondent in impugned order is not correct and is set aside. 9.. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed and the respondent is directed to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner for grant of exemption from entry tax and sales tax for which he is entitled in accordance with law. Security deposit, if any be refunded after verification. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 652 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... general provisions which refers to the tax or any other amount due which could be fee, interest, penalty, etc. Though the quantification of penalty amount in both the cases is provided under sub-section (ii) of section 13 but for considering the penalty the provisions of section 12-B alone have to be seen. It was observed by the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192, that if the court finds that the language of a taxing provision in ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then the court has to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so where the provision relates to the imposition of a penalty . 5.. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the assessing authority is directed to re-compute the interest in respect of the delay beyond 10 days after the expiry of 20 days as provided under sub-section (2) of section 12-B of the Act. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 651 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tered person, i.e., to a person other than a registered dealer. Meaning thereby, in case the required declaration or certificate is not obtained by the selling dealer from the purchasing dealer and furnished before the assessing authority, the sale would be deemed to be to a person other than a registered dealer, even if factually the purchaser may be a registered dealer. Rule 12-B provides that form III-C(1) shall be issued by the registered dealer to the dealer selling the goods mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3-D. Admittedly, no such declaration in form III-C(1) was furnished by the respondent to the selling dealers and, therefore, the sales in question were taxable as sales in the hands of the selling dealers and not as purchases in the hands of the purchaser, the respondent. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal s order does not require any interference in revisional jurisdiction. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 650 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s. In case an adverse order is passed, it is open to the petitioners to file appeals against that order even if the Forest Development Corporation fails to file the appeal and the Corporation shall furnish a true copy of the assessment order to the petitioners and the same shall be accepted by the appellate authority provided the other requirements for filing the appeal are satisfied. We, further direct that assessment shall be made and the appeals, if any, shall be disposed of expeditiously. 5.. As regards the contention raised in W.P. Nos. 26074 of 1997 and 33083 of 1998 with regard to the application of concessional rates on filing G-forms, that point has been decided against the respondents and they should act in conformity with the judgment of this Court in Sable Weghire and Company Ltd. v. A.P. Forest Development Corporation Ltd. 1998 109 STC 656. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (7) TMI 649 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e sole question is about initiation of assessment proceedings within the period of 12 months from the date of completion of assessment proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 4-A. 12.. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is a case in which the proceedings under section 18(6)(a) were not initiated within the period of 12 months from the date of determination of liability to pay tax under section 4-A(1) and, therefore, it is held that the orders of assessment under section 18(6) of the State Sales Tax Act and Entry Tax Act and the orders passed in revisions under sections 39(1) and (2) of the State Sales Tax Act are barred by limitation. 13.. In the result, the petition is allowed. The assessment orders and the orders passed in the revision by the revisional authority (annexures E, F, G, G-1 and I) are set aside. In view of the foregoing reasons, no order as to costs. The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 648 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sing officer should provisionally give credit to the extent of the amounts covered by tax deduction certificates issued by the Panchayat Raj and the Public Health Departments concerned for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. It is open to the first respondent to cause verification to be made with the concerned official of the departments as to the particulars of remittances. In case the first respondent wants necessary information, the concerned officer who issued the certificates or the successor in office is bound to furnish the necessary particulars. In case they fail to furnish the particulars to the Commercial Tax Officer, they should note that they will be exposed to the risk of being charged under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. After such verification, if there is any deficit, it is open to the first respondent to demand the balance from the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (7) TMI 647 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roducts out of surplus milk need not be sporadic and the fact that the by-products are sold regularly on a largescale does not lead to the inference that the said by-products were not realised from the utilisation of surplus milk. No exception can be taken to the conclusions reached by the Tribunal, more so, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Kalahasti Co-operative Milk Supply Society Ltd. (1989) 9 APSTJ 170. The tax revision case is therefore dismissed at admission stage. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 646 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... likely to obstruct the economic growth, that may not be in the interest of the State itself. 45.. To conclude, the provisions of section 25-A of the Bihar Finance Act to the extent they relate to transfer of property in goods taking place in course of inter-State trade or commerce or a sale outside the State or in the course of import within the ambit of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, or the declared goods within the meaning of sections 14 and 15 of the said Act, must be held to be ultra vires entry 54 of the State List read with entry 92A of the Union List and article 286 of the Constitution. Further, to the extent they provide for deduction from payment made on account of labour charges and other services towards sales tax, the provisions must be held to be ultra vires entry 54 read with article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but without any order as to costs. AFTAB ALAM, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 645 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot be done by virtue of section 25 aforesaid), the exemption already granted under the Notification dated September 30, 1982 to unit already established would remain unaffected. 8.. In view of the above discussions, I find that the action of the Commissioner in initiating proceedings under section 4-A(3) against the assessee was without jurisdiction and suffered from legal mala fides. The Tribunal s order sustaining such action is, therefore, not legally sustainable. The revision petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the dealer-revisionist should be compensated by adequate costs. 9.. The revision petition is allowed. The Tribunal s order dated April 26, 1999 is set aside and it is ordered that the revisionist s appeal No. 55 of 1998 under section 4-A(3) will stand allowed and the Commissioner s order dated March 27, 1998 will stand quashed. The revisionist will get his costs of this revision petition from the respondent which I assess at Rs. 5,000. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 644 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act by substituting the term interest to penalty was suggested. 5.. In view of the various decisions, given by the division Bench of this Court, it has to be held that the nature of amount payable for default in making the payment of tax due is a fixed quantified sum for which the authorities have no discretion under the Act to reduce or enhance under the provisions of section 13 and as such it has to be treated as interest. The liability to pay interest is a substantive charge and could be imposed for the default of the tax payable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, but in respect of dues under the Central Sales Tax Act such substantive liability cannot be fixed by invoking the provisions of section 9(2)(a) in the absence of any substantive provision in Central Sales Tax Act as held by the apex Court in India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam 1997 106 STC 460 (1997) 6 SCC 479. Writ petitions stand disposed of with the above observations. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (7) TMI 643 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w v. C.A. Glass Works 1995 99 STC 308 1996 UPTC 1, and the question was whether the glass shells which were unfinished goods and were to be used for manufacturing bulbs fell in the aforesaid description or were to be treated as unclassified goods. The learned single Judge on a detailed discussion held that reading the description as a whole the glass shells cannot be taxed under entry No. 4 aforesaid and the Tribunal had rightly held them to be taxable as unclassified goods. 8.. Learned Standing Counsel could not show me any authority to the contrary and I find no reason to take a different view. The entry has to be read as a whole and given a purposive interpretation which leads me to agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. C.A. Glass Works 1995 99 STC 308 (All.) 1996 UPTC 1. These revision petitions, therefore, have no force and are hereby dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 642 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le after deduction of the discount remained in the sales tax account. This is a question of fact which has not been considered by the assessing authority. If merely a bill has been issued by the petitioner and thereafter before filing the monthly return the credit note has been issued then it could be considered that there was no collection of tax. In a case even where there is any mistake in the calculation of the tax, the amount raised in the bill could not be considered to be collected and the assessee has always a right to correct the mistake. It has not been found as a fact the amount for which the bill was raised was compulsorily paid by the buyer. If the credit note has been issued even before making the payment then it could not be considered to be the amount collected. In these circumstances, the order of forfeiture is quashed. The matter is sent back to the assessing authority for passing a fresh order, keeping in view the observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 641 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt or any other court will extend the period of limitation. Section 12-A(2) has extended the time-limit during which the stay was granted by any court or any other authority. It is only the time during which the stay granted is extended. But in a case where the stay is not granted and ultimately the matter is decided against the assessee requiring to make the assessment on the basis of the ultimate order or judgment given then the proviso further extends the time but, if a judgment is given in other case, then it would justify reopening of the assessment only within the time prescribed under section 12-A(1) and if it is in the case of the same assessee or person then, proviso to sub-section (2) of section 12-A thereof extends the time-limit for initiation of the assessment/reassessment of that assessee. The petitioners may file their objections to the respondent who may decide the same following the observations made above. Petitions stand disposed of. Petitions disposed of.
-
1999 (7) TMI 640 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e amount of sales tax already paid could be given adjustment under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act. 7.. Provisions of section 4-B has made liable only the importer of motor vehicles for registration and tax. Importer has been defined under section 4-A(1)(c) as the person who brings a motor vehicle into a local area from any place outside the State for use, or sale therein and who owns the vehicle at the time of entry into the local area. 8.. It cannot be denied nor can be presumed that the motor vehicles are not produced in the State of Karnataka. If such locally manufactured motor vehicles are moved from one local area to another they are not liable to entry tax and it is only the importer who has been subjected to tax. The provisions of section 4-B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 are directly hit by articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India and are declared ultra vires the Constitution. Petitions stand allowed accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 639 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer the Supreme Court while holding that pepper and pepper powder are one and the same commodity by applying the functional test, it was observed that wheat as such is not consumed by the consumer, it can be consumed only after powdering the same. But it is not so in the case of pepper. Pepper as such can be consumed by the ultimate consumer. But in the case of turmeric it is not so consumed. Thus applying the functional test also turmeric and turmeric powder are not the same goods. 13.. As far as turmeric and turmeric powder are concerned, we uphold the finding of the tribunal that they are different commodities. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the tribunal that chilli and chilli powder, coriander and coriander powder are different commodities and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the tribunal in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The tax revision cases are partly allowed as above. Petition allowed in part.
-
1999 (7) TMI 638 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iting to such person of his intention to do so and has allowed such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall apply to the rectification of a mistake by a Tribunal as they apply to the rectification of a mistake by the Commissioner. 6.. It is therefore evident from a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions that the order dated March 31, 1992 could not be rectified beyond March 31, 1994. The impugned order having been made on May 10, 1995 is invalid and void ab initio on this ground alone. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the said order. 7. In view of the fact that the impugned order has been quashed on the ground of limitation, we do not find it necessary to address to various other objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8.. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated May 10, 1995 (annexure P2) is quashed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 637 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nclassified goods which were liable to tax under section 5 of the Act and that it is a classified goods under the Fourth Schedule to the APGST Act. 4.. Several decisions are cited at Bar by either side, but they are not having any relevance excepting the one in Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavani 1969 23 STC 232 (Mad.). The ratio laid down in the said case has been correctly applied by the Tribunal in the instant case. It is not that smaller pieces of sugarcane cut in the instant case and sold to the users of the sugarcane are used for extraction of juice. It is not in dispute that the sugarcane which is cut into smaller pieces is sold by the society to its members for the purpose of using them as seedlings and as such, it cannot be categorised as sugarcane, which is an exempted item. In the circumstances, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and accordingly, this T.R.C. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (7) TMI 636 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... appellate authority. The cryptic nature of the order of the appellate authority makes judicial review difficult. 11.. In this context and in view of the facts that the applicant could have no valid reason to withhold the forms to his own detriment, and that no question has been raised so far about the genuineness of the declaration forms, we consider both the appellate order and the order passed in revision unsustainable. 12.. The order passed in appeal by respondent No. 2 on August 19, 1993 and the order passed in revision by the Board on August 13, 1998 are therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 for hearing the appeal again to consider all points raised in the petition of appeal, to consider also the cause for non-production of declaration forms before the first appellate authority already shown or to be shown now, and to pass a reasoned order according to law. There will be no order as to costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Case remanded.
-
1999 (7) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Revenue. The goods were being manufactured even earlier without the installation of that machine and there is nothing to show that the installation of this machine either increased or decreased the production and adversely affecting the Revenue in any manner. Therefore, the Commissioner could not cancel the eligibility certificate on the ground that old filling machine had been installed subsequently. 10.. For the above reasons, I hold that the Commissioner s order under section 4-A(3) cancelling the eligibility certificate was not legally sustainable and the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal of the present revisionist. 11.. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated May 17, 1999, it is ordered that the revisionist s appeal No. 91 of 1998 against an order dated March 27, 1998 under section 4-A(3) of the Act stands allowed and the said order stands quashed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
