|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 989 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated January 15, 1998 for his belief that the driver of the vehicle did not have with him the declaration in form No. 43, was erroneous. 3.. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the matter back to the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter to the respondent No. 2 for re-hearing must be set aside as the Tribunal itself agreed with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner by which it was held that the driver of the vehicle was carrying the declaration in form No. 43 with him. 4.. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Taxation Tribunal is set aside and the writ application is allowed and consequent thereupon the application filed under section 8 before the Taxation Tribunal also stands allowed. 5.. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 988 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onal authority to issue fresh notice to the appellants, consider the record and the submissions canvassed and pass an order that meets with the requirement of law. By way of implication, we need to reiterate the fact that since an appeal is provided to the High Court from the revisional order that it is absolutely incumbent on the part of the revisional authority to pass an appropriate speaking order from which it will be possible for the appellate authority, namely, this Court, to assess as to what was the material and what were the reasons that guided the revisional authority so as to exercise the revisional power or decline to exercise it. We are confident that the revisional authority will take note of our observations hereinafter. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the revisional authority for fresh decision according to law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 987 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1987 which have been rejected only on the ground of delay, and directed the District Level Screening Committee to consider the application on merit in accordance with law. 3.. Considering the application for condoning the delay, the Tribunal has held that it was a case of condoning the delay. Though matter rest with the discretion of District Level Screening Committee, but the said exercise of discretion is subject to appeal and appellate authority has the same powers in considering the application it has exercised its discretion on merit of condonation application. 4.. I am of the opinion that no interference is called for. Accordingly this revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 986 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roceedings. In our considered view, this apprehension is really unfounded because it is well-settled law that each assessment order is required to be considered both factually and legally on the basis of independent material evidence and figures applicable to that party at the point of time and the law as it stands at that point of time. However, in order to avoid any misapprehensions we need to clarify again that the observations and decisions that have emerged in this order will have absolutely no bearing on the course of action that is to be followed or the orders that are to be passed for the subsequent assessment years. 9.. For the reasons indicated by us, having considered the records of the present petition we are of the view that no interference is called for as far as the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is concerned. The petition accordingly fails and stands disposed of on the merits. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 985 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er otherwise. If this interpretation is accepted, it will be wholly ignoring the multiple contingencies spoken to by sub-section (2A) under which the application is filed and also sub-section (3A). Not only for payment of tax under the Act, but also for proper custody and use of the forms demand of security is contemplated. Viewed from this position, the demand is not objectionable. As the conduct for insistence of security is questioned, and not the quantum, I am not looking into that aspect and security could be insisted. Nevertheless, if an application is submitted to them in this regard, for reviewing the amount of security, since the statute does not prescribe a guidance to be adopted in such cases, a rethinking may be permissible. 13.. In the aforesaid view, I hold that exhibit P5 is valid and proper, and is issued with jurisdiction. The original petition is therefore dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 59707 of 2000 in O.P. No. 35007 of 2000P dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 984 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... our opinion the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court by quoting with the approval from Kames case 1977 39 STC 237, Hindustan Aeronautics case 1984 55 STC 314 and Everest Copiers case 1996 103 STC 360 and Baven s case 1995 97 STC 161 (Ker) and further agreeing in Kame s case 1977 39 STC 237 (SC) in the facts noticed by the court as quoted above, leaves no room for doubt that the distinction drawn by the Kerala High Court and relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, has not found its approval expressly or impliedly. Approval was accorded by the court, only to the principle quoted above which was in consequence of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, and applied those principles to the facts of the case, fully supports the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal. 23.. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that no ground for interference is made out in these petitions and same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 983 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aside the revisional order, remand the cases to the assessing authority with a direction that notice be issued to the assessees, they be heard and fresh assessment orders according to law be passed. We need to clarify here that this is a case in which we had occasion to hold that the show cause notice itself suffers from certain legal defects and that consequently, the show cause notice is also liable to be quashed. Normally, the court would have remanded the case to the revisional authority for issuance of a fresh show cause notice and a fresh decision. We have in the course of the hearing had occasion to satisfy ourselves of the fact that this is a case in which a reassessment is necessary and consequently, we set aside the earlier order and remand the cases to the initial assessing authority for passing fresh orders according to law. 10.. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals succeed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 982 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ill be mechanically condoned. In this case all that we need to point out is that the impugned order is dated October 15, 1990. The earlier writ petitions were filed in the year 1992 and these were dismissed on November 23, 1998 after which the present revision petitions have been filed only in the year 2000. These dates will alone indicate that there have been unpardonable lapses in between and in this background this is not a fit case in which the delay can be condoned under any circumstances. This is the reason why we have refrained from issuing notice to the respondents as the supporting affidavit also does not make out any grounds for condonation. 3.. We however make it clear that the dismissal of these petitions which is principally on the ground of limitation will not preclude the petitioner from agitating the point involved in any other appropriate proceedings if they are so advised. The sales tax revision petitions is accordingly stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 981 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and wheat flakes, in our considered view, no distinction is permissible between the two. They would both qualify for consideration under one and the same entry. To this extent therefore the department was in error in having drawn a distinction between the two items. We summarise our findings on the points of law referred to the court in so far as we hold that the department was in error in having categorised wheat bran and wheat flakes separately, that the two products are equitable and that they would qualify for tax/exemption, wherever applicable equally in the light of our findings. The impugned orders wherein a contrary view has been taken would necessarily have to be set aside and the department is directed to take consequential corrective action within an outer-limit of four months from the date of the receipt of the order by the department. 9.. The petitions accordingly succeed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 980 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... penalty was awarded because these are technical breaches involving non-carriage of the requisite documents that this is a fit case in which a reasonable penalty would have served the ends of justice. There was also some debate with regard to the question as to whether or not the petitioners were justified in not having carried form 39 because of the circular issued by the Commissioner which was then in force. This is also a factor which we have taken into consideration. 5.. On an overall evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly since it is demonstrated that there are no aggravating circumstances, in our considered view a penalty of Rs. 10,000 would meet the ends of justice. The impugned order is accordingly modified and the petitioner would be entitled to the consequential refund of the excess of penalty that has been recovered from them. 6.. The petition partially succeeds to this extent. No order as to costs. Petition allowed in part.
-
2001 (3) TMI 979 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not only impermissible but are deprecated. This will apply more so when the case was reserved for judgment because it does create an apprehension of unfairness and the possibility of bias in the mind of the opposite party and irrespective of what were the reasons or how so ever innocuous the entire situation might have been, any breach of the aforesaid principles would be sufficient to vitiate the order that is ultimately passed. 6.. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no option except to set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal is directed to furnish the copy of the intelligence report as asked for by the petitioners, to give them reasonable time to deal with it and thereafter hear the arguments de novo after notice to the petitioners. The Tribunal shall thereafter re-decide the case on merits and shall ensure that the procedure prescribed by law is strictly complied with. The petition succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 978 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lant is on sound footing when he points out that there was no requirement of form No. 39 on the facts of the present case. We also uphold the second contention that has been put forward on the appellant s behalf, namely, that where a revisional authority interferes with a well-considered order and an order wherein the findings appear to be fully justified that there must be very strong, valid and cogent grounds, the reasoning set out and there should also be supportive material before the authority s interference is warranted. None of these ingredients are satisfied, the revisional order is a cryptic order which is totally bereft of any of these considerations. Under the circumstances the revisional order is set aside. The appeal succeeds. The appellate order is restored. If the appellants have been required to pay the original penalty amount then they shall be entitled to pro rata refund. 4.. The appeal succeeds and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 977 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... taking is of no help. 15.. The only issue is whether the State of Bihar was right in not permitting, even if it were to go to the ultimate extent on a prayer not made, the indulgence of filing the consolidated return. The petitioners desire consolidated registration . Of the totality of the circumstances which are on record upon the State of Bihar coming to a prima facie satisfaction that it would not be in the interest of the State to even consider the prayer of the petitioners to grant indulgence of either consolidated registration or the filing of a consolidated returns, this Court is unable to be persuaded that the Tribunal has committed any error. 16.. At the close of the submissions it needs to be recorded that the court did make it clear to counsel for the petitioners that if they desired the tax be paid in instalments. Counsel for the State of Bihar was not objecting. The court received no answer. 17.. Both the petitions are dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 976 - SUPREME COURT
Whether names of the societies and individuals who were already admitted as members before coming into force of the said Act, that is, before the 23rd August, 2000, could be included in the voters list?
Held that:- The requirement of the completion of the period of three years from the date of its investing any part of its fund in the shares of such federal society would apply only to those societies which became member society of the federal society after 20th August, 2000. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Even if there remained any doubt in the matter of interpreting the proviso, the Ordinance that has been promulgated on 27th February, 2001, called the Maharashtra Ordinance No. X of 2001, after the first proviso to sub-section (3), a second proviso had been inserted, has removed any doubt or controversy in as much as it has been indicated therein that the first proviso will not apply to the member society which has invested any part of its fund in the share of the federal society before the commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2000 dated 20th August, 2000. The aforesaid Ordinance also has been given a retrospective effect, to be effective from 23rd August, 2000. The Ordinance having been held to be valid by us as stated above, the so-called prohibition contained in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 will not apply to all those societies which have already become members of the federal society prior to 23rd August, 2000. On the wake of the aforesaid the Appeal thus fails: Each party, however, to pay and bear its own costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 975 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, by reason of the mining leases, the appellant was executing works undertaken by the Government?
Held that:- The appropriate Government has granted and demised to a partnership firm of which the appellant is a partner the right to win minerals from the areas therein mentioned. Clause 23 thereof, which was relied upon, says that if the lessee does not carry out its obligations under the covenants in the lease the lessor may cause the same to be carried out and performed and the lessee shall pay the lessor all expenses in this behalf. There is nothing in this clause in the leases which can support the submission made on behalf of the first respondent that the appellant had entered into a contract for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government.
It is only when the appropriate Government has undertaken works, such as the laying of a road, the erection of a building or the construction of a dam, and has entered into a contract for the execution of such works that the contractor is disqualified under Section 9-A. Section 9-A does not operate to disqualify the lessee of a mining lease such as the appellant.
Having regard to this conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the submission on behalf of the appellant that, in any event, the High Court could not have declared the first respondent duly elected. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 974 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Valuation (Customs) - Contemporaneous import - Settlement of case - Immunities ... ... ... ... ..... section (2) of Section 127H of the above said Act if the duty and penalty are not paid within the stipulated time. Similarly, if it comes to the notice of this Bench that in the course of settlement proceedings, the applicant had concealed any particulars, material to the settlement or had given false evidence, then also the immunities will stand withdrawn as provided under sub section 3 ibid and that the applicant may be tried for the offence with respect to which the immunity was granted or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the settlement and shall also become liable to the imposition of any penalty under this Act to which such person would have been liable, had no such immunity been granted. 16. emsp As provided in sub-section (9) of Section 127C of the Customs Act 1962, this Settlement shall become void, if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud, or misrepresentation of facts.
-
2001 (3) TMI 973 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Demand - Clandestinely removed goods - Settlement of case - Immunities - Grant of ... ... ... ... ..... balance amount be returned by the jurisdictional Commissioner by following proper procedure. We order that the B-11 (Security) bonds of Rs. 4,84,301/- and Rs. 2750/-, both dated 24-2-2000 and bank guarantees of Rs. 1,21,075/- and Rs. 687.50 respectively shall stand discharged on the event of compliance of this order of Settlement. We find that the Central Excise duty of Rs. 440/- on goods valued at Rs. 2750/- (seized in the factory premises) has been debited in P.L.A. vide entry no. 39 dated 30-3-2000 and Central Excise duty of Rs. 77,488/- on the goods valued at Rs. 4,84,301/- (seized in the premises of M/s. Safe Sure Enterprises) has already been included in the demand notice dated 17-4-2000 for Rs. 3,91,308/- and which has been determined as the settlement amount. We further order that the Settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. All concerned are intimated suitably.
-
2001 (3) TMI 972 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Utilisation of credit - Notification No. 10/2002-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... cation No. 10/2002. The Deputy Commissioner took the view that credit in the books had lapsed upon the appellant starting clearance under Notification No. 10/2002. Commissioner (Appeals) overruled that decision upon a finding that no credit was availed in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared under Notification No. 10/2002 and that credit in the appellant rsquo s books was in respect of inputs procured for final products which were not covered by Notification No. 10/2002. In this appeal, Revenue questions that decision. 3.We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. We find no merit in the present appeal of the Revenue. Since Cenvat credit scheme and clearance under Notification No. 10/2002 are separate schemes and in the facts of the present case, the respondent had not violated the terms of either scheme, there is no merit in the appeal. It is rejected. (Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court).
-
2001 (3) TMI 971 - SC ORDER
Two Exemption notifications that cover the goods - assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption notification which gives him greater relief
-
2001 (3) TMI 970 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dishonour of cheques for insufficiency, etc., of funds in account ... ... ... ... ..... ly, Criminal Revision Application Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 1999 are dismissed and the order of recall of process passed by the learned Sessions Judge, against the accused Suresh P. Prabhu is maintained. (d)In all the criminal revision applications, there will be no order as to costs. (e)Needless to say that wherever the criminal revision applications are allowed by this court, the respective complaints filed against the accused Suresh P. Prabhu shall stand dismissed. (f)It is clarified that so far as the criminal revision applications which are allowed and remanded to the trial court, the accused Suresh P. Prabhu may file application for his exemption and the same will be considered and decided by the court at the earliest. (g)So far as the criminal writ petitions filed by the accused Suresh P. Prabhu are concerned, they stand disposed of on the basis of the orders passed in the criminal revision applications, with no order as to costs. Rule made accordingly.
............
|
