|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 310 Records
-
1987 (2) TMI 513 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elling rate would have been determined thereafter. No such enquiry was made from the purchasers. Therefore, the rate mentioned in the cash memos cannot be doubted. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was, therefore, not justified in affirming the estimate of average selling rate per truck. The Tribunal did not consider this aspeet of the matter and without giving any finding on the question whether or not the books of account were liable to be rejected, it simply observed that the average selling rate of ₹ 3500/- as applied by the Assessing Officer, was excessive. When the book version cannot be rejected in view of the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), the question of estimating the average selling rate per truck does not arise. 5. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The Tribunal's order dated 26-6-1986 is set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal to pass an order under Section 11 (8) accepting the book version.
-
1987 (2) TMI 512 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e better that the matter be examined by the learned Judges of the High Court so that we may have the advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which weighed with the learned trial Court in discarding the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents. In view of the facts of the case and the circumstances indicated above we feel that it would be better if the High Court considers the matter and dispose it of after giving reasons and in view of this we think it proper not to express any opinion on any of the matters that may deserve consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order passed by the High Court on 14th July 1983 is set aside and the appeal alongwith petition for leave filed by the State of Bihar is restored to the file of the High Court and it is directed that Hon'ble the High Court after hearing the parties shall dispose of the matter giving reasons for the conclusions in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 511 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as to lease out the same to the judgment-debtors, is a pure finding of fact. It was after entering the said express finding, the second respondent ordered that the decreeholder is entitled to get delivery of the buildings. The above said finding of the second respondent in Ext. P5 was adverted to and it was held by the revisional court that on a perusal of Ext. P5 it can never be said that even in the appreciation of evidence, the lower court committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The findings in Ext. P5 were confirmed. In view of the above concurrent findings of fact. T see no merit in the plea of the petitioners that the Landlord (1st respondent) has not conformed to the submission or undertaking made before the Supreme Court in ext. P4 proceedings. So even on the merits, the petitioners have no case. ( 5. ) NO other ground was urged, assailing Exts. P5 and P7 orders, at the time of hearing. The Original Petition is without merit. It is dismissed in limine.
-
1987 (2) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion placed by the learned Single Judge on Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act read with the two provisos thereto is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. 6. The result therefore is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Registrar as upheld by the Additional Registrar and the State Government is quashed. We wish to make it clear that nothing in the judgment shall be construed as an opinion touching the validity or otherwise of the resolution passed by the appellant-society under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Ac,1961 We leave the question to be determined by the appropriate statutory authority, namely, by raising a dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under 'Sub-section (1) of Section36 of the Act, if permissible. No costs.
-
1987 (2) TMI 509 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self imposed restrain of public interest litigants. Ultimately, by the dismissal of this appeal, the hotel will be completed and will be commissioned. Six long years have passed by. I do not think that the appellants have achieved anything. The first appellant who is a trade union- ist has not espoused any grievance of the mazdoors before us. It was faintly suggested by the Government's counsel that the first petitioner does not represent all the mazdoors. This was refuted by the appellants. For the purpose of this case, we will accept the assertion of the first appellant. Still, we did not have before us any of their grievances ventilated, which, if there were any, we would have willingly considered. I conclude this short Judgment, with a lurking doubt in my mind, and with a question "Is there something more than what meets the eye in this case?"
-
1987 (2) TMI 508 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y to bring on record facts and circumstances which exist leading to such a conclusion. The present is not a case where the detaining authority, to my mind, was clear in its mind that there was no alternative but to detain the petitioner and that his prosecution and possible conviction cannot be a substitute for immediate action of detention. The preventive detention ordinarily should be ordered as a last resort. From the facts of the present case, it can safely be inferred that after having satisfied that the activities of the petitioner are not of such magnitude which required his immediate arrest and trial, there was no justification for the detaining authority to pass the drastic order of detention which was punitive in nature. On this aspect, the petitioner has a case for his release. 12. As a result of the above discussions, petition is allowed. The petitioner be set at liberty at once unless he is required to be detained by the orders of a competent court or authority.
-
1987 (2) TMI 507 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent's application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated 10.8.84. It would be open to the State Government to consider the respondents reply to the show cause notice and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 505 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he State is that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in prescribing a limit to the estimate which the Sales Tax Officer was directed to make after reconsideration. What the Tribunal did was to prescribe the parameters within which the estimate had to be made. This direction was given only because of the facts and circumstances of the case. We see no error of law, much less a jurisdictional error in prescribing the limit which the officer was directed not to exceed in making the estimate. The tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 504 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We are, therefore, of opinion that the Board can interfere with both the orders and that order cannot be challenged on the ground that the Board can interfere only with any one of the orders, viz., the assessing officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, we reject the last contention also. 10.. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the revision was made by the Board of Revenue because of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court and the assessee having not collected tax, since no tax could be leviable as per the decision of our High Court then prevailing the assessee should not be burdened with it. If the appellants have not collected the tax from the vendees it is for the appellants to move the Government for waiver of tax, if they are so advised although the Board has correctly revised the tax. This Court cannot interfere on the question of equity. 11.. In the result, the tax case appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 503 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of sanitary goods and fittings and all types of pipes and pipe fittings. In respect of the same dealer, for different period of assessment in D.B.C.S.T. Reference No. 24 of 1973 decided on 26th March, 1984 (State of Rajasthan v. Oriental Agencies 1987 64 STC 135) a Division Bench of this Court while construing an identical entry held that rubber hose pipe is not used for the purpose of fitting and fixing and must, therefore, be governed by the residual entry and not by the expression all types of pipes and pipe fittings used in the aforesaid specific entry. Following that decision relating to the same dealer deciding the same question in dealer s favour, it must be held that the rubber hose pipes are not covered by entry No. 63 of the notification dated 29th May, 1967, and they must fall within the residual entry. Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in taking this view. Consequently, the revision of the department is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 502 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting the nature of transaction. In the former English case we agree with the observation made that at times the contentions raised with reference to receptacles raised difficult questions. The three authorities under the Act 6 of 1957 have concurrently found bottles and crates were sold when beer was sold to vendees. We have borne in mind the principles laid in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. McDowell and Co. Ltd. 1980 46 STC 79 (Ker), State of Tamil Nadu v. McDowell and Co. Ltd. 1980 46 STC 85 (Mad.), Arlem Breweries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax 1983 53 STC 172 (Bom) and Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 1983 53 STC 179 (Bom) in arriving at the conclusion. We find the bottles and crates when they are returned to the company indicated in our conclusion a different sale by the customer to the company. In that view there are no merits in the three tax revision cases. The three tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 501 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he repaired transformers are approved after joint inspection and the payment is made to the assessee. The next question is whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the book version regarding the turnover of scraps. Whereas, the assessee disclosed the turnover at Rs. 17,474.05, the assessing officer estimated the turnover at Rs. 70,000. The assessee gave a reason for steep fall in the turnover of scraps that the instant partnerships came into existence with effect from 1st October, 1980 and no scrap was taken over from the old partnership firm and that the turnover of the scraps that become available during the period from 1st October, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 only Was shown and that was much less. The Tribunal accepted this reason and in my opinion rightly. Otherwise also, no question of law arises from this decision of the Tribunal, as it is purely based on finding of fact. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. nbsp
-
1987 (2) TMI 500 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... year also. At the time of survey, information was given by the person available at the kiln that the firing was started about 10 days before. The survey was conducted on 12th December, 1981. Even if this version is believed, firing period would commence on 2nd December, 1981, but the assessing officer took the starting period as 28th November, 1981. Looking to all these circumstances, I think that the turnover of bricks could reasonably be determined at 4,00,000. Consequently, proportionate reduction is allowable in coal and the purchases of excess coal consumed from unregistered dealers can be restricted to Rs. 15,000. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal to pass an order under section 11(8) of the Act determining the turnover of bricks at 4,00,000 instead of 4,35,000 and determining the purchases of excess coal consumed from the unregistered dealers at Rs. 15,000. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. nbsp
-
1987 (2) TMI 499 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see raised two contentions before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and he accepted one of the contentions and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee, it was open to the assessee to raise the contention, which was not decided by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), before the Tribunal. For the reasons, I have no option but to remit the case back to the Tribunal for giving a decision on the preliminary objection of the assessee whether or not the proceedings under section 21 were rightly initiated by the assessing officer. In the result, all these three revisions are allowed. The Tribunal s combined order dated 28th June, 1986 is set aside and the cases are sent back to the Tribunal with a direction that it will record a clear finding, after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties on the question whether or not the proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, were legally initiated by the assessing officer. Petitions allowed. nbsp
-
1987 (2) TMI 498 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... my view, the Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to that authority for consideration of the said forms and the certificates. Before, however, concluding, I must observe that if the Assistant Commissioner entertains any doubt regarding the genuineness or otherwise of any declaration or certificate which in his opinion cannot be decided by him in a proper or convenient manner, it is open to him to get the validity and genuineness of those declaration forms and certificates examined by the assessing authority and then decide the issue and make the final assessment order. 11.. In my opinion, therefore, the answer to the question as such referred to this Court is that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in remanding the case to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration of the C forms and the E-I certificates produced by the dealer. In the circumstances, I shall, however, make no order as to costs. R.C. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (2) TMI 497 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ircle I was the assessing authority and the petition is presented by the assessing authority? There is no longer any dispute that the point involved for decision in the above question, is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur v. S. Zoraster and Co. 1985 59 STC 214, which incidentally relates to the same assessee. The Tribunal s view being contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, was unjustified. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The Tribunal shall now proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 496 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... grounds envisaged by section 21, but on the grounds which he would have considered even at the stage of the original assessment. As already stated, assessment cannot be made at different stages but only once, unless the case is covered under section 21 of the Act. The approach of the Tribunal is that the assessing officer can furnish new reasoning and can consider all those matters which he would have considered at the stage of the original assessment. If this approach is endorsed, then it would mean that an assessment can be made at several stages by giving some of the reasonings and by considering some of the aspects of the case at one stage and some at the other stage. Such an approach has to be rejected. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order of the Tribunal and the reassessment proceedings are set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal to pass an order under section 11(8) of the Act, 1948, setting aside the reassessment order. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 495 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proprietary business and when a proprietary business was changed into a partnership business. But the High Court of Kerala held that rule 5(23) requires the assessee only to submit an application for fresh certificate of registration. As the transfer of the business by a firm to an individual and individual to a firm, cannot be considered as a continuation of the business it is considered necessary to make necessary amendments in sub-rule (8) of rule 5. It is obviously from this that sub-clause (d) was intended to introduce an obligation to apply for fresh registration in all cases of dissolution of the firm followed by taking over of the business by an individual. 12.. The petitioner is stated to be a dealer who is prompt in the payment of his taxes. It will be open to the petitioner to make application for fresh registration and the assessing authority will consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously. The original petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 494 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . So this is not the case of levying the penalty automatically in the absence of some of the documents. The question is whether from the facts and circumstances of the case an inference can be drawn that the intention was to evade the tax behind the contravention of the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. No inference except the one that the intention was to evade the tax behind the contravention of section 28-A of the Act can be drawn in this case. Why form XXXI was not sent to the consignor? This question remains absolutely without any explanation. The goods were not accompanied with proper cash memo, bills and challans. So the absence of declaration and the other documents clearly leads to an unmistaken inference that the assessee acted with a design and the goods were imported without proper documents simply with a view to evade the tax. For the reasons, the order of the Tribunal is upheld. The revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 493 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the taxable turnover has not been followed by the assessing authority. The first appellate authority negatived the plea of the assessee, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had not adverted to this aspect. It is within the province of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as the final court of fact to go into these aspects and, therefore, we do not wish to embark upon an enquiry as to what would be the consequence of the application of the principle contained in section 8-A(1)(a) in the determination of the taxable turnover of the assessee. For the foregoing reasons, the T.R.C. is allowed in part, the matter is remitted to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner regarding the applicability of the formula contained in section 8-A(1)(a) to determine the net taxable turnover for the assessment year 1975-76. In other respect, the T.R.C. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 350. Petition partly allowed.
........
|
