|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 692 Records
-
2006 (7) TMI 604 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... als or gas, fumigation or any other process applied for preserving the goods in good condition or for easy transportation, conversion of rubber latex into centrifugal latex, raw rubber sheet, ammoniated latex, crepe rubber, crumb rubber or any other item falling under entry 110 of the First Schedule or treating the raw rubber in any form with chemicals to form a compound of rubber by whatever name called. In this case, manufacturing process was done outside the State of Kerala and the dealer was only converting the manufactured sodium silicate to liquid sodium silicate. The conversion of soluble glass into liquid sodium silicate is not a manufacturing process, since no manufacturing process was done in the unit. The assessee is therefore not eligible for the reduced rate of tax at eight per cent on the sales of sodium silicate. The assessing authority has therefore rightly assessed the turnover to tax at 12 per cent. Revision therefore lacks merits and the same is dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 603 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnment Pleader for Commercial Taxes is, therefore, liable to be rejected. However, we also make it clear that the embargo contained in section 22 of the SICA Act is not absolute and section 22 of the SICA Act says no legal proceedings of the nature referred to earlier shall be taken against a particular industrial company where an enquiry under section 16 or 17 of the SICA Act under an appeal is pending, except with the consent of the Board. In other words, it is always open to the BIFR to permit any such legal proceedings as mentioned in section 22 of the SICA Act to have satisfied that such a permission is necessary having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, it is always open to the respondents to bring it to the notice of the BIFR and seek appropriate orders under section 22 of the SICA Act with regard to the recovery of the arrears of tax in question in this writ petition. No costs.
-
2006 (7) TMI 602 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... courts below are correct. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal were justified in holding that the assessee had the valid documents and there was no violation of section 28-A and the assessee was not liable to pay the penalty as imposed. The honourable Supreme Court has held in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Oriental Carbon Ltd. 1997 10 NTN 105, that the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal that there had been no intention to cause any loss to the Revenue or to evade tax in importing into State certain consignment without form No. 31, the imposition of penalty on the ground of breach of provision of section 28-A was not good. The Uttaranchal High Court in Polyplex Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax 2004 136 STC 389 2003 UPTC 1097, has also taken the same view. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this revision. As such, the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
-
2006 (7) TMI 601 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in respect of the goods seized under section 13-A(1) of the Act. If the goods is not seized, penalty proceedings under section 13-A(3) of the Act cannot be initiated. In the present case, it appears that the goods had not been seized. Further the dealer had explained that since both the copies of the bill had been taken away by the purchaser, therefore, Bill No. 52 was issued from the bill book relating to the labour charges maintained in the regular course of business and, therefore, the difference occurred in the bill found along with the goods and carbon copy of the bill but the entry of the goods was duly found entered in the books of account. Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the dealer and held that the entries of the goods were found entered in the books of account. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. No contrary material has been shown by the learned Standing Counsel. For the reasons stated above, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 600 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ason. Non-furnishing of additional security within the time specified may be one of the reasons on which registration can be cancelled. Additional security does not come within the purview of tax, penalty or other dues, therefore, period of three months is not applicable to the additional security. The assessing authority vide its order required the dealer to furnish the additional security within the specified time, therefore, on the expiry of that time on non-furnishing of additional security, the assessing authority can cancel the registration. The view taken by the Tribunal that the registration could be cancelled only after expiry of three months is not sustainable and the order of Tribunal is accordingly liable to be set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of Tribunal dated November 11, 1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh on merits.
-
2006 (7) TMI 599 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... able to be quashed. . . In the present case, the revisional authority raised the demand of interest for the period prior to the date of order and raising of demand. In this situation when the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered by various judgments, whether this court should still give a direction to the Tribunal to make a reference or decide the issue at this stage itself, is settled by this court in S.T.C. No. 19 of 1992, titled Chaudhary Tractor Company, Tohana v. State of Haryana decided on May 29, 2006 (1). 1. Reported at 2007 8 VST 10. Accordingly, following the judgment in Chaudhary Tractor 39 s case, S.T.C. No. 19 of 1992 decided on May 29, 2006 we deem it appropriate to answer the question straightway by converting the case into a reference. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the assessee shall not be liable to pay interest for the period before the demand was raised against the assessee in the revisional proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
-
2006 (7) TMI 598 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... turity instead of using it as food. Secondly, we find that entry 39 of the Third Schedule provides for exemption of nursery plants, seedlings, suckers and other planting materials, including seeds used for raising crops. Even though many crops are taxable under the Act, their seeds and seedlings are granted exemption under general category which only shows the Legislature 39 s intention to encourage cultivation. We do not find anything to indicate in the Schedules or elsewhere in the Act that the Legislature wanted a disincentive for fish farmers by taxing baby fish purchased by fish farms for rearing. Above all, there is no entry in the Schedules to the Act to levy tax on any other category of fish which are ordinarily not used as food such as ornamental fish kept in aquariums. In the circumstances, we are of the view that fish in all forms, whether baby, dried or fresh, will fall under entry 18 of the Third Schedule to the Act. Tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 597 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... If a promise leaves scope for two or more possible meanings or interpretations, it cannot be said to be clear and unambiguous. We have very carefully read and analysed the Revival Scheme and the Government Orders granting exemption to the petitioner-company. We do not find any promise to exempt from payment of turnover tax which was introduced much later in August, 2002. There was no promise that all kinds of future taxes that might be imposed under the Sales Tax Act would be exempted excepting the provision in the Revival Scheme that no tax substituting sales tax and purchase tax would be realised from petitioner No. 1 during the period of exemption. As already indicated, turnover tax was/is no substitute for sales tax and purchase tax. It is a separate tax in addition to sales tax and purchase tax. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the present case. We agree that the present application is liable to be dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 596 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mittedly the renewal applications were not filed in time, but were filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act and therefore the question of affording an opportunity of hearing does not arise. The provisions of the Act and Rules have to be read together and should be construed harmoniously, but should not be read in isolation as is sought to be done by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which if done will be against the principle of statutory interpretation. Admittedly in these cases the renewal applications were submitted after April 30, 2006 namely on June 13, 2006. Therefore, in my considered view the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners does not arise and hence the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. For the foregoing reasons, all the four writ petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 595 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be made and sold as such. In fact, standard forms of bus bodies can be fabricated and kept ready for sale and any customer bringing chassis can purchase it, fix the same on the chassis in a ready-made condition. There is provision in the Entry Tax Act to levy tax on bus-body treating it as a distinct product. Even under works contract, tax at the Schedule rate applies, when custom-made articles are made and sold based on contract between parties. In such circumstances, we do not think the introduction of tax on works contract makes any difference so long as the product sold by the petitioner answers the description of goods which are made and sold by the petitioner. The fixing of bus-body on the chassis under the contract does not alter the nature of levy, is what is held by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, sustain the order of the Tribunal justifying the assessment of bus-body under the entry provided in the Schedule. The tax revision case lacks merit and it is dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT
Dismissal of habeas corpus petition filed by one Rizwana Ziyath seeking release of her husband, the present appellant Ibrahim Nazeer ('detenu') who was detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison of Chennai under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Held that:- Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. In fact, five bail applications filed had been already rejected. In that background this Court observed that it was not "normal" case. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 593 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ance. Necessarily, he cannot be heard to contend so, even if there is any illegality to be rectified in a proceedings under article 226 at this belated stage, that too bypassing the statutory remedy. He cannot be thus allowed to chal lenge the assessment orders passed long ago, in this writ petition as he could not have challenged those orders, even otherwise, resorting to the statutory remedy at this belated stage, ordinarily. The remedy available under article 226 of the Constitution of India is to avert an injustice and not to circumvent statute and thus precipitating injustice. In such circumstances the writ petition can be termed only as an attempt to evade the statutory prescription of time-limit in filing appeals and other adjudicatory process and to get a relief which he otherwise would not have obtained. That cannot be permitted in a petition invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, though on a different ground, we confirm the judgment impugned.
-
2006 (7) TMI 592 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal that may be filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, we are not expressing our view on that point. We have also not expressed any opinion regarding the contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General that as the duty is cast on the assessee to furnish the genuine C form so as to pay tax at a lower rate and therefore the burden is also on the assessee to prove that the C forms are genuine, for which except for issuance of a show cause notice no further materials are required to be supplied to such assessee, and therefore we have not discussed the decision in State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal and Co. 1967 20 STC 374 (SC) AIR 1967 SC 1758 on which the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral has placed reliance. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference of this court. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
-
2006 (7) TMI 591 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to promote retail finance activities of the bank. The contention is that prior to September 10, 2004, they were not covered under the scope of business auxiliary service. The contention of the Revenue is that as per definition, business auxiliary service means promoting and marketing the services provided by the client. The contention is that as the applicant introduces the customers to the ICICI Bank for their retail finance and, therefore, are covered under the business of auxiliary service. In the present case, the applicant entered into an agreement with the ICICI Bank to promote their retail finances. Therefore, it is not a fit case for total waiver of service tax demand and penalties. The applicants are directed to deposit 50 per cent. of the amount within four weeks. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the pre-deposit of the remaining amount of service tax demand and penalties are waived for hearing the appeal. Adjourned to September 1, 2006, for reporting compliance.
-
2006 (7) TMI 590 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at multi-point sales and adjustment of input tax, also contemplates collection of tax on price reduced by discount, which should reflect in the bill of sale, as evident from form No. 8. The claim of the petitioners that retrospective exclusion of the cash discount will seriously prejudice them, as they have already given cash discount, cannot be accepted. The petitioners have collected tax from the dealers, as per the bill of sale, which is in form No. 8. Therefore, they are bound to pay it to the Government. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted and the tax liability is reduced, based on the cash discount subsequently given, the petitioners will be keeping a portion of the tax they have already collected from the purchasing dealers. That will amount to unjust enrichment. So, the claim of the petitioners for relief, at least in relation to the period from April to August, 2005 also cannot be accepted. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 589 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioner. In fact, no such notice has been or could be issued. The petitioner, in view of its offer, is directed to pay the entire amount of sales tax attributable in these four writ petitions in two equal instalments. The first instalment is to be paid by July 31, 2006 and the second instalment is to be paid by August 31, 2006. In passing the said order, this court has also taken into consideration the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the principle of promissory estoppel in its recent judgment in the case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Haryana 2006 145 STC 350 2006 3 SCC 620. This court passes this order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the offer made by the petitioner in court. This court makes it clear that this court is not laying down any general proposition on sections 12(4-a) and 13(6) of the said Act. All the writ petitions are, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. I. MAHANTY J. - I agree.
-
2006 (7) TMI 588 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking recovery of arrears of tax - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("TNGST Act") - Liability of an auction purchaser of a property - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the property was sold by public auction on March 10, 2003. The sale was conducted in execution of the recovery certificates issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of dues to the City Union Bank. The appellants had paid the entire amount due on March 25, 2003 and the sale was confirmed in their favour on April 23, 2003. There is no indication of any sales tax arrears in the advertisement for auction sale and there was no application from any statutory or public authority seeking to set aside the sale. For the first time, by letter dated June 25, 2004 the Commercial Tax Officer required the second respondent to create an encumbrance with regard to the property and consequently an entry was made in the register in respect of encumbrance of the first respondent.
Thus, it is evident that the appellants had no actual notice of the charge prior to the transfer. There is also no material to show that the appellants had constructive notice of the charge and no submissions were made by the learned Special Government Pleader on this issue. Hence, we are of the view that the appellants were the purchasers for value without notice for the sales tax arrears of the defaulting company or the consequent charge on the property. Thus, the property in the hands of the appellants was free of the charge and it is not open to the first respondent to enforce the liabilities of the defaulting company in this manner against the appellants.
Insofar as the alternative submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the charge created u/s 23 of the TNGST Act will have priority over the mortgage created in favour of the City Union Bank, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion thereon in the present case, since the bank is not a party to the present proceedings. The first respondent is entitled to adopt such proceedings as permissible in law to establish its rights against the bank.
Thus, the appellants herein, as transferees of the property for valuable consideration without notice of the charge, are entitled for protection and consequently, the proceedings of the first respondent are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, W. A. M. P. is closed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 587 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... into. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner raise debatable issues and the petitioner has a remedy of raising these submissions before the appellate authority or during the course of regular assessment. Under the scheme of the VAT Act, it is clear that provisional assessment is pending final assessment. We, therefore, do not express any opinion at this stage on the contention whether potato chips will be covered by entry 88 and whether jurisdiction under section 30 could be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within one month from today, learned counsel for the State has fairly stated that the appeal will not be dismissed on account of limitation. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2006 (7) TMI 586 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urnover) Rules, 1957. The petitioner has to comply with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder and not the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder. Declaration form under the Central Excise Rules is not a reliable piece of evidence to show transfer of stock from one State to another. That document is not binding on the officers functioning under the Central Sales Tax Rules. Further counsel submitted that there is an entry in RG 24 regarding delivery notes. The assessee has not produced any reliable evidence to show that there was stock transfer from State of Kerala to Visakhapatnam after passing through the check-posts in the State. All the fact finding authorities have concurrently found that the assessee has not discharged the burden under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We find no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below. Revision petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 585 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed food, we can definitely say that in the context and background of the notification biscuit cannot be treated as cooked food. The court also held that it is a well-settled rule of construction that the words used in a law imposing a tax should be construed in the same way in which they are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law in force. We are of the view that even though in a wider sense cooked food may include ice-cream, ordinarily it would be difficult to characterise ice-cream as cooked food . By the time, ice-cream is made and is served to the customers, the fact that there was heating must be relegated to the background. In view of the properties in the final product, it would also not be in consonance with the popular meaning of ice-cream in the market, to characterise it as cooked food . In such circumstances, we are of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal is only to be supported, and consequently the revision petitions are dismissed.
............
|
