|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 944 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . But the products which go into mixture, and the mixture, are all fertilisers, used to fertile the soil. As the component parts and the end-product have the same properties and are used for the same purpose, it cannot be said that the end-product (NPK mixture) is a different product. The mixing and blending of different chemical fertilisers is not therefore manufacture but is only a processing. 11.. In the circumstances, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that no manufacturing is involved by mixing different types of chemical fertilisers. Therefore, causing of entry of several chemical fertilisers which are mixed to produce NPK mixture sold by the respondent cannot be subjected to entry tax under item No. 80 of the First Schedule read with item No. 81 of the notification dated July 30, 1992 issued under the KTEG Act. 12. In view of above, these revision petitions have no merit and they are accordingly rejected. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 943 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ute in the following words The marginal note to section 8 is licensing and exemption of agents and it is argued that the exemption granted in section 8 would be meaningless if agents were not included in the category of dealers as defined in section 2(b) and made chargeable under section 3. From the exemption provided for by section 8 a positive provision levying a charge is, in effect, sought to be inferred or implied. In construing a taxing enactment very little weight attaches to the argument that because a specific exemption from tax is found in it, other cases not specifically exempted must be deemed to have been charged to tax. Such exemptions are often introduced under the influence of excessive caution to quiet the fears of the timid and the unduly apprehensive. Expressio unius will not be exclusio alterio in such cases. 17.. For these reasons, we see no merit in the tax revision cases. Accordingly, the tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 942 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s given effect from April 1, 1994 and it was not given any retrospective operation. 6.. Thus, we are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in holding that polythene sheets and polythene tubings cannot be said to be packing materials coming under polythene, for the purpose of reduction in rate of tax. 7. The next question is whether plastic and plastic waste are similar. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, plastic is an item mentioned in entry 145 of the First Schedule for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and in entry 101 during 1992-93 and 1993-94. The term plastic is given a different meaning than plastic waste. 8.. The next contention is regarding the reduction of turnover. We are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion on the basis of reliable evidence and no question of law arises. In the above view of the matter, these tax revision cases are dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 3048 of 1999 in T.R.C. No. 124 of 1999 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 941 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ders and were not confined merely to matters which had escaped assessment earlier. In the circumstances, the only orders which could be the subject-matter of revision by the appellant were the orders made under section 12A of the Act and not the initial assessment orders. 10.. According to us, the principles laid down in the above decision will equally apply to a case where the original assessment is set aside by the appellate authority unless the appellate authority specifically limits the scope of the remand. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of A.P. v. Hotel Ganesh 1996 100 STC 256 is inconsistent with the decision mentioned above. That apart, it is not clear from the said decision as to what are all matters which were dealt with by the appellate authority while setting aside the assessment order. We do not find any illegality in the finding of the Appellate Tribunal. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 940 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is incompetent having due regard to the clear and unambiguous language employed in sub-section (1) of section 17 read with sub-section (5A) of section 17 of the Act. Even accepting the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes that in the light of sub-section (5A) of section 17 of the Act, recovery of outstanding dues could be effected from the petitioner-company is correct, even then, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law because sub-section (5A) of section 17 of the Act provides that outstanding dues could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is nobody s case that such an action is initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Land Revenue Act. 2.. For all the above reasons, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned notice. No costs. 3.. That a rule nisi has been made absolute as above. 4.. Witness the honourable Mr. M.S. Liberhan, Chief Justice, on this Wednesday the eighteenth day of October, two thousand. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 938 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... packets without seal. In other words the meat when it attracts tax must be sold in sealed packets. We do not agree to the technical meaning ascribed to the situation. Assuming for argument that the sausages and other cold storage goods are supplied only in open plastic bag and not in sealed containers will not come under the ambit of meat . The process admittedly carried out by the petitioner on meat will definitely come under manufacture as defined under the Act. As we pointed out earlier entirely different goods were sold by the petitioner and, therefore, they are not goods that are included in the Second Schedule. Therefore on merits also the petitioner is liable to pay tax on the goods it is dealing with and we find no illegality in issuing the notice, annexure P5. 13.. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 937 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... to examine the witness in the presence of the assessee. Hence, I am unable to subscribe the view that personal hearing should be given to the assessee whether he asks for it or not, but at the same time if he asks for it, it should be given and should not be refused. In this case, the assessee never asked for personal hearing at any stage till the arguments put forward by their counsel in the revision before this Special Tribunal though he filed written objections only without asking for oral hearing to the notice given under section 55 of the TNGST Act. 29.. So far all the reasons stated above and the reasoning given in my judgment dated July 25, 2000, both the T.C.R. No. 2930 of 1997 and 2931 of 1997 ought to be allowed accordingly. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 16th day of October, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 936 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y merit in either of the submissions made by the appellants in these set of appeals as well. 64. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss them with no order as to costs. 65.. The appellants who filed the writ petitions on the issuance of proposition notices are permitted to file their objections, if any, against the proposition notices within a period of four weeks from today. In cases where the writ petitions were preferred against the orders of assessment without preferring the appeals provided under the statute, the appellants are permitted to file their appeals within a period of four weeks before the respective appellate authorities. In case objections/appeals are filed within four weeks as directed, then the concerned authorities are directed to dispose them of on merit treating them to be within limitation. This has been done keeping in view the pendency of W.Ps./W.As in this Court during this period. Writ appeals dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 935 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under section 8-D(1) of the Act as penalty. 12.. It may be mentioned here that under section 8-D(6) of the Act a sum not exceeding twice the amount deductible under section 8-D but not so deducted can be imposed as penalty. Thus, the maximum amount of penalty, which can be imposed, has been fixed. However for imposing any amount of penalty even if it is equal to the amount of tax deductible under section 8-D but not so deducted some reasons are to be given justifying the amount of penalty. However, in the present case, the authorities have not given any reason whatsoever as to why the penalty should be equal to the amount deductible but not deducted under section 8-D of the Act. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide all the appeals afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. 13.. In the result, all the revisions succeed and are allowed in part. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 934 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e prospective operation of the material provisions of the said law, but it can also provide for the retrospective operation of the said provisions . 6.. In one case, O.P. No. 9492 of 2000 notice has been issued under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for exemption of penalty. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that because of the confusion that existed, the petitioners did not pay the tax. Hence, we quash that notice calling for penalty. We give one month time to the petitioners to pay the tax due for the above period. If the amount is not paid within one month, the authorities can take steps for the recovery of the amount including penalty. In the above view of the matter, the petitioners cannot contend that there cannot be retrospective application. The tax revision cases and original petitions are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.W.P. No. 2138 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 132 of 2000 dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 933 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 4 93 STC 37 (Raj), does not lay down the correct legal position. With respect, we are unable to subscribe our views to the view taken by the learned single Judge. We, therefore, declare that the said judgment is no longer good law. 8.. The aforesaid decision proceeds on the premise that later modification of final assessment order on appeal or revision shall, make the provisional assessment still relevant. With utmost respect we are unable to agree. Once regular assessment order takes place, after provisional assessment, the findings given in the regular assessment and tax demand created thereunder only operate. Even on appeal or revision, if the regular assessment order is modified, varied or set aside, the regular assessment order as modified by the superior authority in such proceedings as are undertaken, prevails. In such circumstances, there is no reversion to provisional assessment order thereafter. 9.. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 932 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in the said mines were granted to the assessee-contractor and that mines and minerals vest in State Government, the removal of minerals at the direction of owner of minerals from the mine site for the purpose of its use in execution of works for the State Government, the owner does not result in vesting of any right to such goods in the contractors, which he could transfer to the awarder. The fact that State Government had devised a methodology getting royalty on such minerals from the contractor, by deducting the same from contract consideration, can have no bearing on the question whether the minerals removed from mine belonging to State under the directions of the officers to be used for the purposes of State, can amount to sale of goods in any sense by the removable of such goods to the owner of such goods? Answer is evidently in the negative. 8.. Accordingly these revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 931 - SUPREME COURT
CBI Investigation - Held that:- The use of the words no such file clearly indicates that what the CBI intended to convey to the Court in the first affidavit was to tell the Court that such file never existed and it is only when the reply to the said affidavit was filed by the writ petitioners with a view to get over the earlier statement, the second affidavit was filed by Mr. Raghuvanshi interpreting the word existence to mean not traceable. In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we are unable to accept this explanation of the CBI and are constrained to observe that the statement made in the first affidavit as to the existence of Part-II file can aptly be described as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. That apart, the explanation given in the second affidavit of the CBI also discloses a sad state of affairs prevailing in the Organisation. In that affidavit, the CBI has stated before the Court that Part II file with which the Court was concerned, was destroyed unauthorisedly with an ulterior motive by none other than an official of the CBI in collusion with a senior officer of the same Organisation which fact, if true, reflects very poorly on the integrity of the CBI. We note herein with concern that courts including this Court have very often relied on this Organisation for assistance by conducting special investigations. This reliance of the courts on the CBI is based on the confidence that the courts have reposed in it and the instances like the one with which we are now confronted with, are likely to shake our confidence in this Organisation. Therefore, we feel it is high time that this Organisation puts its house in order before it is too late.
Leaving apart the above observations of ours in regard to the CBI, having considered all the materials placed before us and the arguments addressed, we are satisfied that on the facts and the circumstances of this case, the prayer of the appellants to direct a criminal investigation into the deal in question by an appropriate agency, as prayed for in the appeal, cannot be granted.
-
2000 (10) TMI 930 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in computing the period of limitation as provided in Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the date of election of the returned candidate should be excluded or not?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the instant case, the date of election of the returned candidate being 25.11.1998, the election petition filed on 12.1.1999 on exclusion of the first day from computing the period of limitation, was in time and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
-
2000 (10) TMI 929 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... of ships and that the ships should operate between India and Japan and not substantially in only one of the two countries. rdquo In the light of the above, it is clear that whether losses were suffered in Japan or on world-wide basis are of absolutely no relevance. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal as well as the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that the assessee-company is entitled to the DTA relief ship agreement. So, we find no infirmity with the direction given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer will allow the DTA relief at the proper rate to the assessee-company. In the absence of any adverse material/ evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same is hereby upheld. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 928 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Assessing Officer in this regard. The assessee had stated that it had incurred an expenditure of Rs.14,511 per hectare and not more. That figure should have been accepted in the absence of any material on record that the assessee actually did incur more than that amount. In the absence of any material for this presupposition, it cannot be assumed that the assessee had incurred a higher amount and further assumption that the said higher amount was debited under various heads of the profit and loss account. The mere fact that the assessee has not challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for making such addition is not sufficient for assuming that whatever he has added to the income of the assessee was its concealed income, or in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty, though for different reasons. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 927 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nquire into the sufficiency of materials or substitute its judgment in the place of the judgment of the Tribunal in regard to questions of fact, nevertheless, if the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are so irrational in the sense that no reasonable man would have come to such a conclusion either because of a total lack of evidence or because of irrelevant considerations, the High Court would interfere with such findings. Thus, in the present case, we find that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. 7.. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders, viz., order of the assessing officer, appellate order and the order of the Tribunal and direct the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh in compliance with the provisions of natural justice. If the assessing officer is deciding on any material, the assessee has to be informed about it and his explanation obtained. T.R.C. is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 926 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine manufacture and removal - Evidences - Sufficiency of ... ... ... ... ..... he factors such as non-finding of any discrepancy in the raw material account at the time of the visit of the factory, payment of no overtime, finding of no discrepancies in the working hour by the officers of the Labour Department and requirement of raw material. 20. emsp Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the matter, also the fact that neither any statement from any purchaser of the alleged clandestinely removed goods was recorded nor the statement of any seller of the raw materials was brought on record, coupled with the fact that neither the stock of finished goods was found in excess nor there was any discrepancy in the stock of raw material at the time of surprise visits/checks by the Excise Officers, the Department has not substantiated its case and it cannot be reasonably said that the Appellants have clandestinely manufactured and cleared M.S. ingots. The benefit of doubt must go to them and as such all the appeals filed by them are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 925 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ctured by four other persons were in fact manufactured by it, the others being only its facade. 4. emsp The Circular No. 3/92-C.EX., dated 14-5-1992, which this Tribunal in CCE, Nagpur v. Paradise Conductor Pvt. Ltd. has held would be binding on the adjudicating authorities, limited the powers of the Assistant Collector for adjudicating cases demanding duty under Section 11A of the Act to Rs. 50,000/-, except in cases relating to approval of classification list and price list. By application of the ratio of that decision the order of the Assistant Commissioner that was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in excess of his jurisdiction. Hence the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be set aside. 5. emsp The departmental representative has no answer to this point. His contention that the circular applies only to Modvat alone is totally unsupported by a reading of it. 6. emsp Accordingly we recall our earlier order, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 924 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Winding up - Suits stayed on ... ... ... ... ..... at the electric connection to the defendant No. 1 was not granted by the plaintiff on the surety of defendant No. 2 and/or defendant No. 3. The plaintiff as such has no cause of action. The two issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Issue No. 6 34. In view of the findings recorded under issue No. 5 above, neither defendant No. 2 nor defendant No. 3 is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. The issue is decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 4 35. this issue was not pressed during the course of hearing. The same is as such decided against the defendants. Issue Nos. 7 and 8 36. In view of the findings recorded under issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 above, the plaintiff is neither entitled to recover any amount from any of the defendants nor to any interest. The two issues are decided against the plaintiffs. Relief 37. As a result, the present suit fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
........
|
