|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 866 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on under Section 114(f) of Evidence Act would be safe to draw in favour of the tenant and to hold that the requisite notice was sent by the tenant to the landlord. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and therefore a ground for his eviction under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Act was made out. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The decree of eviction, as passed by the first appellate court and maintained by the High Court, is sustained though for reasons at variance therewith. However, the tenant is allowed time till 31.3.2002 for vacating the premises subject to filing an usual undertaking on affidavit before the executing court within a period of one month from today to clear all the arrears of rent within one month, continuing to pay the rent falling due month by month by the 15th day of that month and handing over vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord on or before 31st March, 2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 865 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y usefully rely upon the following observation of this Court in Nivex Private Ltd. (supra). "I may at this stage also observe that in the plaint it has been categorically stated that the defendants are selling the infringed goods in Delhi and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. It is true that there is no document which has been filed in support of this submission but that is a matter which will be gone into at the time of trial of the suit." 27. Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction will be thrashed out completely at the trial of Suit only. The plaint cannot be rejected for want of jurisdiction at this stage. 28. IAs. 10789/2000 and 12882/2000 filed by the defendants are accordingly dismissed. Interim injunction Order dated 9th August, 1999 passed in IA. 7522/99 was made absolute on 31st August, 2000. This IA. 7522/99 is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the said Order shall remain in operation till the suit is finally decided.
-
2001 (12) TMI 864 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Appellant had, by his letter dated 8th November, 1997, replied to the Notice of the Respondent dated 18th October, 1997. In this reply it had been mentioned that goods were of inferior quality and not as per contract. Court has not applied its mind or dealt with this aspect. It has not examined points at controversy between the parties. It is given ex-parte as Appellant did not appear at hearing of Suit. It is not a judgment on merits. On the principles of law enunciated herein above, in our view, it is clear that such a decree cannot be said to be a decree on merits. Such a decree cannot be enforced in India. In this view of the matter Civil Appeal No. of 2001 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2250 of 2000 is allowed and the Application of the Appellant that this decree cannot be enforced in India as it is not on merits is made absolute. Civil Appeal No. . of 2001 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5332 of 2000 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the Appeals.
-
2001 (12) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... adjudication. Since there were no pleadings, the State did not have an opportunity to indicate its stand. Under the circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to consider that question for the first time in these appeals, particularly, when factual adjudication would be necessary. Coming to the plea relating to repeal of the Notification, it is to be noted that the Notification dated 1.7.1995 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9(1)(a) of the Taxation Act, while the impugned Notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9(1)(6) of the said Act. It is to be noted that originally Notification was issued under Section 3 of the said Act and its operation has not been questioned. That being the position, there was no requirement to issue a fresh Notification to make the levy. Notification dated 1.7.1995, did not supersede the original Notification issued under Section 3 of the Taxation Act. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 862 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of the notifications declaring a market area and establishing a market for agricultural produce in Gaya and the legality ,of the levy of market fees and licence fees therein under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (Bihar Act 16 of 1960) and the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules 1962
Held that:- The market committee has taken-steps for the establishment of a market where buyers and sellers meet and sales and purchases of agricultural produce take place at fair prices. Unhealthy market practices are eliminated, market charges are defined and improper ones are prohibited. Correct weighment is ensured by employment of licensed weighment and by inspection of scales, weights and measures and weighing and measuring instruments. The market committee has appointed a dispute sub-committee for quick settlement of disputes. It has set up market intelligence unit for collecting and publishing the daily prices and information regarding the stock, arrivals and despatches of agricultural produce It has provided a grading unit where the technique of grading agricultural produce is taught. The contract form for purchase and sale is standardised. The, provisions of the Act and the Rules are enforced through inspectors and other staff appointed by the market committee. The fees charged by the market committee are correlated to the expenses incurred by it for rendering these services. The market fee of 25 naye paise per ₹ 100/worth of agricultural produce and the licence fees prescribed by Rules 71 and 73 are not excessive. The fees collected by the market committee form part of the market committee fund which is set apart and ear-marked for the purposes of the Act. There is sufficient quid pro quo for the levies and they satisfy the test of "fee" as laid down in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954 (4) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT]. It is then said that the setting up of a market in Gaya is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution as the Act and the Rules have not been implemented in all parts of Bihar. There is no force in this Contention. The State Government is not bound to implement the, Act and the Rules in all parts of Bihar at the so time. I It may establish markets regulating the sale and purchase of Agricultural produce in different parts of Bihar gradually and from time to time. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 861 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... hus the mode of ascertaining the valuation as done by him is very unsatisfactory. That the said officer did the job most perfunctorily is also reflected from the physical counting of the bags seized by him. He mentions the number of bags as 160 but subsequently he found the same to be 157 bags only. Because of all the above we hold that the detention, seizure and issuance of notice - despite productions of all necessary documents have been unlawful. 6.. Accordingly we hold that the application should be and is allowed. It is ordered that the seizure made on November 21, 2000 in respect of 160 bags of betel-nuts by respondent No. 1 is illegal and the same as such is quashed. The notice dated November 21, 2000 in form 44 also accordingly be cancelled. The seized goods have already been released on furnishing security. The security so furnished be released forthwith. Parties do bear their respective costs. 7.. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member). - I agree. Application allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 860 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gument may on the face of it look attractive but we find that it does not stand a deeper screening of the provisions of law. There is no question of two validations in this case. It was explained in the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of India Carbon 1997 106 STC 460 and Khemkas case 1975 35 STC 571 which reveal the total history to point out that inclusion of the word interest in the procedural part was not considered sufficient and therefore, the necessity arose for second validation when the word interest has been sought to be incorporated in the substantive provisions of law and once the inclusion of the word to levy interest in the procedural part was not considered sufficient by the Supreme Court the Legislature will make the further validation, therefore the arguments with regard to second validation has no substance in our opinion. 34.. We find no force in any of these petitions. The same are hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lude the liability, if any, on the purchase or raw material extends to all the products manufactured, is intended to enable the industries to become financially viable and to encourage entrepreneurs to set up new units in backward taluks. In the context, in which the word product is used wider meaning to the term is to be assigned with a view to subserve the purpose of the scheme of incentives. There is nothing in the G.O. which would come in the way of the products mentioned in the G.O. being regarded as comprehending by-products, which are distinct commodities as well, especially when such by product is also the result of the process which renders that byproduct distinct and different from the raw material from which that by-product is obtained. 7.. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the sales tax deferral in respect of the sales tax payable on the sale of the waste cotton. The writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 858 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt in Transfer case (Civil) Nos. 20-24 of 1989 dagger . In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and held that the foodstuff prepared by cooking or by any other process from raw materials such as cereals, pulses, vegetables meat or the like cannot be regarded as commercially distinct commodity and it cannot be held that such foodstuff is manufactured or produced. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that no manufacturing process was taken place when cooked food is prepared. According to us, so far as the present case is concerned, we are governed by section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It takes not only manufacture, but also consumption. In the above view of the matter, we dont find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed. Word in Malayalam transliterated in English. Reported on Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 2000 245 ITR 538.
-
2001 (12) TMI 857 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t a particular provision arises. If so, the very foundation of the appellants argument collapses. (Underlining is ours) Here italicised. 99.. It is also significant to notice that section 5 of the Entry Tax Act is totally different from section 5 of the Ordinance. It specifies the deductions to be made from the turnover of a registered importer. Some of the deductions contemplated under section 5 are similar to those contained in rule 9(1) of the 2000 Rules, but clause (b) thereof does not find mention in section 5 of the Entry Tax Act. This also stands clarified by rule 9 of the 2000 Rules. 100.. The argument of Shri A.K. Ganguly that the impugned legislation is violative of article 19(1)(a) merits rejection because the levy of entry tax does not, in any manner, affect the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 101.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 856 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and attempt to evade tax are necessary pre-conditions for levying penalty under section 29A(4) is a clear misunderstanding of the section. An attempt of evasion of tax due under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is what attracts penalty under section 29A(4). Transfer of goods from one branch to another without accounting the same in the departmentally issued form accompanying the goods only proves the dealers intention to do unaccounted sales. Subsequent accounting of goods after detection is not a mitigating circumstance to escape penalty. Therefore, we do not find any error in law in the finding of the Tribunal. However, in view of the decisions cited above and the accounting of goods though subsequently, we feel that levy of maximum penalty is not called for. We accordingly reduce the penalty to one and a half times the tax sought to be evaded. The tax revision case is disposed of by modifying the order of the Tribunal to the above extent. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 855 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the agriculturist principal to the society. That is not the view of the assessing officer who has categorically held that the petitioner/dealer is the agent of the agriculturist principal. It is not the finding of the assessing authority that the assessee is the purchaser from the agriculturist principal. 3.. The impugned order of the Tribunal, as also that of the assessing officer cannot be upheld. The same are, therefore, set aside in so far as the levy of purchase tax on the sale of groundnuts, effected by the assessee/dealer as agent of the agriculturist principals who are its members. 4.. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Act No. 31 of 1992. That question does not require our consideration in this proceeding. It is not necessary for us to go into the validity of the Act as, even if we assume that the Act is valid, the assessee cannot be taxed, as the assessee is not the purchaser and the point of levy of tax is the first purchase. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 854 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... industrial unit in the manner provided in column (3) of item No. 1, annexure B, read with item 4(a) to the extent quantified in column 4, within the specified period in column (5) as on the date applications of the respective petitioners were completed in all respects which was prior to September 30, 1999 and such rights in any respect are not affected by the amendments brought into effect on January 7, 2000 when notification dated September 30, 1999 was published in any of its aspects. The petitioner-appellants in each case shall continue to enjoy the benefits of the package under the scheme which has accrued to them on the date of completion of their applications as per the provisions of the scheme in force on that date. 178.. The appeals No. 523 of 2001, 524 of 2001, 525 of 2001, 546 of 2001, 534 of 2001, 560 of 2001, 570 of 2001 and 577 of 2001 by the State are dismissed. 179.. There shall be no orders as to costs. Appeals by assessee allowed. Appeals by State dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 853 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r supply..... fittings must receive colour from the immediately following words sanitary fittings . The above decision was followed by a division Bench of this Court reported in N.R. Somasundaran Nair v. State of Kerala 1999 112 STC 214 (1999) 7 KTR 55, when it dealt with water storage tanks and held that water storage tanks are not sanitary fittings. In G.S. Pai s case 1980 45 STC 58, the Supreme Court further held that water supply fittings do not occur in isolation, but they are used in juxtaposition of the words sanitary fittings . The entire expression water supply and sanitary fittings is one single expression and the words water supply......fittings must receive colour from the immediately following words sanitary fittings . 5.. In the light of the above, we are not able to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the assessing authority. T.R.C. is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of.
-
2001 (12) TMI 852 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... esult, the bill for refund was returned and thereafter the petitioner received a communication from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai stating that a stay petition No. 4 of 2000 in S.T.A. No. 156 of 2001 was filed in respect of the amounts refunded in pursuance of the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Though a counter-petition was filed challenging the maintainability of the said application filed under section 39-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 the Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order staying the refund of the amounts ordered for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On merits, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 119 STC 182. In any event, after the issue of refund voucher in pursuance of the refund order passed by the
-
2001 (12) TMI 851 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... works contract done by the petitioner is earth work and civil construction work. 4.. The Government Pleader has brought to our notice item 5(a) in the description of the work in annexure-A. Here again joining the pipes, etc., are done with materials supplied by the Water Authority. Therefore the material portion is outside the scope of work except in regard to the civil work. The petitioner has rightly paid the tax at the rate applicable to civil contract on the turnover and we therefore find that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in describing the contract as one coming under item 15 of the Fourth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. We, therefore, reverse the order of the Tribunal on this issue and direct assessment on the petitioner s taxable turnover in respect of all these years at the rate applicable to civil work. T.R.Cs. are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 1682 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 116 of 2001 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wn by the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company 1998 109 STC 439 and in light of the stand of the State Government as recorded in Giriraj Sales Corporation v. State of Gujarat 2002 125 STC 369 (Special Civil Application No. 2648 of 1996 decided on November 18, 1998) . 4.. The petition is accordingly allowed and the provisional assessment dated August 20, 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence the attachment orders dated September 25, 2001 and November 22, 2001 as well as the order dated November 1, 2001 cancelling the registration of the petitioner and the order dated August 6, 2001 demanding security by way of bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000 in the notice dated October 25, 2001 under section 200 of the Code to attach and sell the properties of the petitioner are also quashed and set aside with the same directions as in paragraph 8 above. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 849 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... already started the commercial production, thereby satisfying even that condition under clause 4(iii)(d). 13.. In such circumstances, it is not proper to hold that the petitioner is not eligible for the relief of Central sales tax as provided in the basic Government Orders, namely, G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990 and G.O. Ms. No. 1394 dated December 4, 1990. Under such circumstances, there being no valid ground for the first respon- dent to deny the entitlement of the petitioner in the issuance of the eligibility certificate dated December 2, 2000 in so far as it related to the Central sales tax, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, there will be a direction to the first respondent to include the entitlement of the petitioner for Central sales tax also for the relevant period in the eligibility certificate of the petitioner. Conse- quently, connected W.M.P. is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 848 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1992 (a copy of which is at annexure P3) to show cause as to why the Government be not directed to proceed against them for failure to perform their duties and to take care of the public funds in the performance of their official functions. They shall file their replies by January 7, 2002. The case shall be posted for consideration by the Bench on January 11, 2002. 20.. Mr. Sibal has made a prayer for compensating the petitioner by award of costs. He submits that the petitioner has been put to an avoidable expense on account of the negligence of the officers. This matter shall be considered when we get the response of the officers. 21.. A copy of this order (certified by the court Reader) shall be issued to the counsel for the parties for further action. The Registry shall get a photo copy of the paper book prepared and give it to Mr. H.L. Sibal, who has been requested to assist the court as amicus curiae. Mr. Sibal may ask his junior to assist him. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 847 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the petitioner depositing the aforesaid amount as directed within the period stipulated, the interim order shall stand vacated and the respondents will be entitled to proceed on the basis of the letter dated March 22, 2001, in accordance with law. 25.The respondents shall keep the amount as may be deposited by the petitioner in short term fixed deposits with a nationalised bank and keep the same renewed and in the event the petitioner s application succeeds, the said amount with interest accrued thereon shall be paid by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. In the event the petitioner s application fails, the respondent No. 1 will be entitled to appropriate the said amount with interest accrued thereon against the demand contained in the letter dated March 22, 2001, and also to pursue the demand in respect of the balance. 26.. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment on the usual undertakings. Petition partly allowed.
........
|
