|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 85 Records
-
1972 (1) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT
Disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent firm with reference to the performance of the contract
Held that:- Mr. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate, is appointed Arbitrator by consent of the parties to go into all the questions in this matter and make his awar. The remuneration for the arbitrator would be ₹ 5,000, which will be shared by both the parties equally.
The arbitrator will make his award within three months from today
-
1972 (1) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT
Dismissal of a suit for an injunction restraining the respondent from infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs used on packets of biscuits challenged
Held that:- The defendant had infringed the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff should be decreed and an injunction granted restraining the defendant-respondent from selling or using in any manner whatsoever biscuits in wrappers similar in appearance to the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs on their packets. Appeal allowed.
-
1972 (1) TMI 97 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... article 14. No material has been placed before me to adjudge the same on facts, nor does the record perused by me satisfy me that the petitioners have discharged the onus which is entirely on them, to establish that such a discrimination has crept in. I am, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Karim that the concessional rate, if made applicable to safety matches alone, would result in the violation of article 14 of the Constitution. The main request of the petitioners is for the issue of a writ of mandamus without seeking for setting aside the orders of assessment. This is not possible in the eye of law. Even otherwise, the alternative prayer for refund of certain amounts alleged to have been collected in excess is a matter which can be the subject-matter of a civil suit, and if such is the position no rule under article 226 of the Constitution can issue. For all these reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1972 (1) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of 14th April, 1957 (No. S.T. 4485/X) which grants exemption to khandsari sugar on the condition that additional excise duty leviable thereon has been paid. In the instant case, there is no finding as to whether khandsari sugar utilised by the assessee in the preparation of kulia khand is sugar contemplated by the notification of 14th December, 1957, or the notification of 1st April, 1960. But in any case kulia khand is not taxable under the notification of 25th November, 1958, mentioned in the question for the simple reason that that notification does not seek to levy tax but exempts from tax certain commodities. Khandsari sugar no doubt has been excluded from the exemption, but that by itself does not mean that khandsari sugar is taxable under that notification. For these reasons we would answer the question for these two assessment years also in the negative. The assessee will get costs which we assess at Rs. 100 (one set of costs only). Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (1) TMI 95 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Act to submit periodical returns of their turnover and to pay tax due thereon. In conclusion, we only need refer to a judgment of Arun Kumar Mukherjee, J., (as yet unreported) in the matter of Sunil Kumar Roy v. The Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Central Circle, Bihar, Calcutta, and Another, where the learned Judge observed that The charging section of the Act under which the assessment order is made permits the assessment to be done only on an annual basis. The reasons mentioned by respondent No. 1 for making quarterly assessment could not possibly have enlarged his jurisdiction to make an assessment on a basis different from what is warranted by the statute. The learned Judge of course was dealing with the Bihar Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the reasons stated, we set aside the order of the learned Judge. The appeals are allowed. The rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. B. C. MITRA, J.-I agree. Appeals allowed.
-
1972 (1) TMI 94 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns if it were modified as a result of an appeal or revision. That does not mean that a proceeding under section 43 of the Act is one supplementary to the assessment. 3.. The sum of Rs. 14,019.66, which the petitioner seeks to get refunded is, on the admitted facts of the case, an amount collected by the respondents without any authority of law. In that view of the matter also, the petitioner is entitled to get the said amount refunded. It is surprising that the petitioner s application for refund of that amount which the Government should not have collected, and which happened to be collected as a result of an obvious error in the order of assessment, has been rejected by all the three authorities on sheer technical and totally untenable grounds. I quash the orders, exhibits P-2, P-4 and P-6, and direct the respondents to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 14,019.66 within two months from this date. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (1) TMI 93 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Izatnagar arising out of the contract of sale between the assessee and the railway administration. Thus, the third condition as to the existence of an obligation to export is also fulfilled and, in my opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sales amounting to Rs. 3,53,623.85 were not rightly taxed as intraState sales. These sales being in the course of inter-State trade should have been exempted from the imposition of State sales tax. 12.. In fine, for the reasons already stated, I would answer question No. (i) in respect of sales amounting to Rs. 3,53,623.85 in the negative and in favour of the assessee and in respect of sales amounting to Rs. 20,390 in the affirmative and against the assessee. I would refuse to answer question No. (ii) as it does not arise out of the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250 only. KANHAIYAJI, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly .
-
1972 (1) TMI 92 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e running saw mills and the third is apparently a dealer in timber. It is stated that the petitioners purchase timber logs and get them cut and sawn into planks and sell them. It is not averred here also, just as in the other cases, that the sale to the petitioners had suffered tax or was liable to tax. This is the case also with the petitioner in O.P. No. 4866 of 1971, who also is a dealer in timber. Hence, these petitions have no merit. 34.. In O.P. Nos. 3958 of 1970 and 688 of 1971, the petitioners purchase copra and oil, and deal in oil and oil-cakes. I need not examine whether their purchases are from persons who are liable to tax under section 5. That is because in both these cases, assessments have only been proposed and no assessment orders have been passed. So this is not a matter which requires investigation now. 35.. In the result, all the original petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1972 (1) TMI 91 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee s books of account. This court in Mahabir Prasad Jagdish Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1971 27 S.T.C. 337. , has dealt with a similar matter. It has been held there that information with regard to the high consumption of electricity may be a circumstance justifying action under section 21. But the high consumption of electricity by itself is no material for rejecting the account books of the assessee. Something positive and concrete pertaining to the books of account should be placed on the record before the account books are rejected and a best judgment assessment is made. In the instant case, we find that the sales tax authorities have brought no material on the record to justify the rejection of the books of account which had previously been accepted. In the circumstances, we answer question No. (1) in the affirmative and question No. (2) in the negative. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (1) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of any goods at the time of filing the appeal against the assessment order determining the total tax liability of the assessee, and does not appeal or is deemed not to appeal against the admitted tax, it is not open to him to challenge in revision filed against the appellate order the liability to pay the admitted tax which was not questioned in appeal. The Judge (Revisions) was thus, in the circumstances of the case, right in not permitting the assessee to challenge the liability to tax in respect of the turnover of cotton, the tax liability in respect whereof had been admitted by the assessee when he had filed the appeal. Accordingly, we answer the first question as reframed by us in the affirmative. In view of the answer to the first question, the second question does not arise and it is returned unanswered. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, is entitled to his costs, which we assess at Rs. 100. Counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (1) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... works price and (2) delivered price, if the assessees have charged only the ex works price, it should be taken that they had effected actual delivery to the buyer or his nominee at their factory. We, therefore, hold that the assessees are entitled to relief in respect of all the transactions in relation to which they have either produced authorisation letters from the out-of-State buyers to effect deliveries at the factory to their nominees or shown that they have charged only ex works price. In this view, while upholding the order of remand made by the Tribunal, we direct the appellate authority to exclude those transactions from the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act where the assessees have charged ex works price in their invoices treating them as local sales not occasioning the movement of the goods from the State of Tamil Nadu. The result is, the tax cases are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1972 (1) TMI 88 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th were allowed conditional exemption-the condition being that the additional Central excise duty leviable thereon had been paid. Under the notification of 25th November, 1958, sugar was granted unconditional exemption, but khandsari sugar continued to be governed by the notification of 14th December, 1957. Under the notification of 1st April, 1960, such khandsari sugar upon which additional excise duty was not leviable or which had been exempted from such levy was placed under section 3-A and its turnover was made taxable in the hands of the importer or the manufacturer. Once khandsari sugar is taxed under section 3-A, the different forms of khandsari sugar cannot be taxed over again. Such a course would be, opposed to the very scheme of section 3-A. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there would be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1972 (1) TMI 87 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssment. The assessment is already made and it is only the corrections which the assessing officer has now to make as per direction given by the superior authority. Thus in either view of the matter where an assessment has been made on the basis of the returns filed by a dealer, and if such assessment is set aside for being made afresh, in my opinion, the period of limitation as laid down under the proviso to section 13(6) of the Act will have no application. 7.. In the result, the question referred for our opinion is answered in the affirmative. The assessee to pay costs and hearing fee Rs. 150 only. SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH, J.-I agree. On the facts of the case there can be no doubt that the Commissioner by his order dated the 13th November, 1950, did not direct any fresh assessment, nor there could be any initiation of a proceeding subsequent thereto. In the circumstances, the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1972 (1) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reme Court, in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Limited v. Commissioner o Sales Tax 1971 28 S.T.C. 331 (S.C.)., further go on to observe as follows The levy and collection of tax is regulated by law and not by contract. So long as there is no law empowering the dealer to collect tax from his buyer or seller, there is no legal basis for saying that the dealer is entitled to collect the tax payable by him from his buyer or seller. Whatever collection that may be made by the dealer from his customers the same can only be considered as valuable consideration for the goods sold. 13.. On a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, our answer to the question is as follows Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of sales tax charged separately on the sale of coal is a part of the turnover liable to be assessed to tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The parties shall bear their own costs in all these references. References answered accordingly.
-
1972 (1) TMI 85 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be made to suffer. We are in respectful agreement with the principle enunciated in the aforesaid rulings. In the light of what has been said above, we hold that the registration certificate issued to Messrs Refrigeration Products took effect from the date of the application made by them under section 7(2) of the Act in March, 1966. The result would be that on the date of the sale of Rs. 1,53,475.32, the purchasing dealer would be deemed to be a registered dealer and the declaration obtained from him in the prescribed form subsequently by the selling dealer duly conformed to section 5(2)(a)(ii) and the relevant Rules. We would, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned Single Judge and answer the question posed in the affirmative. In the result, Civil Writ No. 2655 of 1970 is allowed and the impugned orders of the Assessing Authority are quashed and the case is remanded for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. Petition allowed. Case remanded.
-
1972 (1) TMI 84 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n question is in the course of export is essentially a question of fact and that no single test can be laid down which can serve as a straight jacket to fit every transaction. Each case has to be construed on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. On the facts of the instant case, we do not find it possible to hold that the Tribunal has committed mistake in holding that the sales in question were in the course of export. 6.. In our opinion, the construction put by the Tribunal on the terms of the contract is correct. Even if two constructions of the terms of the contract were possible, one in favour of the assessee and another in favour of the department, the construction in favour of the assessee has to be accepted, and the construction put by the Tribunal is in favour of the assessee. We would accordingly answer the question in the affirmative. The assessees shall be entitled to their costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250 only. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1972 (1) TMI 83 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Show cause notice - Waiver of - Estoppel - Waiver of - Estoppel - Writ petition - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... is no sufficient cause for the delay. I cannot say on the facts of this case that there was negligence or want of diligence on the part of the petitioner in moving the writ petition in this Court. The last point raised by Mr. Pyne therefore, also fails. 13. emsp Before I part with this case I must mention here that the learned Advocate for the petitioner informed me that the suit instituted by the petitioner in his case ended in a decree in favour of the petitioner. That again is a point which goes against the respondent. 14. emsp For the reasons however, already given, the result is, the petition succeeds. The impugned adjudication proceeding and the orders are quashed. I make no order as to costs. 15. emsp The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. I, however, make it clear that nothing in my judgment will prevent the respondents Nos. 1-4 to start proceedings afresh and to act in accordance with law. Let a writ both in the nature of Mandamus and Certiorari issue accordingly.
-
1972 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a transaction falls within the purview of sales tax?
Whether it constitutes a contract of sale or a contract of work or service?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The contract between such a hotel proprietor and a traveller presenting himself to him for lodging is one which is essentially a contract of service and facilities provided at reasonable price. The transaction between a hotelier and a visitor to his hotel is thus one essentially of service in the performance of which and as part of the amenities incidental to that service, the hotelier serves meals at stated hours. The revenue, therefore, was not entitled to split up the transaction into two parts, one of service and the other of sale of food-stuffs and to split up also the bill charged by the hotelier as consisting of charges for lodging and charges for food-stuffs served to him with a view to bring the latter under the Act.
-
1972 (1) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Transfer of Shares – Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal ... ... ... ... ..... about once a year. On the question whether the company could validly oppose an application by tenants for a new tenancy, it was held that the company was entitled to oppose the application as the intention of the directors who had not met formally at a meeting was the intention of the company. This question is not relevant, so far as this appeal is concerned, as the trial court proceeded on the footing that the board of directors had, in fact, refused to register the shares. This court in dealing with this appeal also accepted the appellant s contention that there was a refusal by the board of directors of the company to register the shares held by the respondent. In our view, the court below was entirely right in making the order for rectification of the share register of the company. No grounds have been made out for interfering with the order made by the trial court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Certified for two counsel. Ajay K. Basu J. mdash I agree.
-
1972 (1) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... Court in State of Bombay v. Bandhan Ram Bhandani 1961 31 Comp. Cas. 1 1961 1 SCR 801 AIR 1961 SC 186. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has noticed the difference in the language used in section 32 and section 134(1) of the old Act, and indicated that the view as was adopted by Chagla C. J. in the Bombay case was a possible one, based on this difference in the language. In view of our conclusion on the interpretation of section 220(1) of the Act, and of our view that the Supreme Court decision in Bandhan Ram Bhandani s case (supra) is no authority for cases arising under section 220(3), we would hold that the decision of the Single Judge reported in Registrar of Companies v. Haribansha Misra 1969 39 Comp. Cas. 990 AIR 1969 Orissa 234 has not been correctly decided. In the result, the conviction of the petitioners under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, must be set aside. The petitioners are acquitted and the fines, if paid, shall be refunded. PATRA J. mdash I agree.
|
