|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 844 Records
-
1967 (11) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT
Whether order passed by the Textile Commissioner and confirmed by the Central Government imposing cut in the import entitlement by the respondents should be set aside and quashed?
Held that:- Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to, carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise, solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances. in which the obligation has arisen. We agree with the High Court that the impugned order passed by the Textile Commissioner and confirmed by the Central Government imposing cut in the import entitlement by the respondents should be set aside and quashed and that the Textile Commissioner and the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports be directed to issue to the respondents import certificates for the total amount equal to 100% of the f.o.b. value of the goods exported by them, unless there is some decision which fails within cl. 10 of the Scheme in question.
It is common ground that the report of the Committee was not made available to them and the Textile Commissioner, before he passed the orders, did not call for their explanations. It must therefore be held that enquiry in a manner consonant with the rules of justice was not made in the case of those four exporters also. Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (11) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT
Whether preparation of provisional gradation lists by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the relevant provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was unwarranted in law and the final list published on April 6, 1962 prepared by the State Government under instructions from the Central Government with regard to the integration of officers of the Engineering Department was illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by the grant of a writ?
Held that:- Appeal allowed in part. In view of the special circumstances of the present case we think that the respondents were entitled to an opportunity to make a representation with regard to the two points urged by Mr. Asoke Sen before the final gradation list was published. As no such opportunity was furnished to the respondents with regard to these two matters we hold that the combined final’ gradation list dated April 6, 1962, so far as category 6 is concerned, is ultra vires and illegal and that part of the notification alone must be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The rest of the notification of the State Government dated April 6, 1962 with regard to other categories will stand unaffected. So far as category No. 6 is concerned, the Central Government is directed to give an opportunity to the respondents to make a representation in regard to the two points mentioned in this paragraph and thereafter take steps to finalise and publish the list in accordance with law.
-
1967 (11) TMI 106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e. Section 41(1) empowers the officer concerned to require a dealer to produce before him the accounts, documents etc. Under clause (3) of the same section, if any officer empowered has reason to suspect that any dealer is attempting to evade the payment of any tax, he may seize the documents, accounts etc. of the dealer. As already noted, section 57(1) of the Act applies only to the documents produced under section 41(1) and not to the documents seized under section 41(3). The documents mentioned in item (3) of the application are the documents said to have been seized by the officers. I am, therefore, of the view that section 57(1) will not apply to these documents. The learned counsel further contended that they are privileged documents under section 124 of the Evidence Act. It is not open to the petitioners who are private parties to claim privilege. The privilege can be claimed only by the public servant concerned. The revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (11) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... because the publication of a draft rule is not equivalent to the notice expressing any intention to levy a rate. In our opinion, therefore, rule 17 is not invalid for want of proper publication. Learned counsel for the assessee then suggested that the assessing authority having formed the opinion that the transactions subjected to tax amounted to works contracts, it was not open to him in exercise of the revisional power to reopen the assessment and bring to tax the escaped turnover by a change of his opinion. But rule 17 which applies clearly says that the power thereunder can be exercised if for any reason the whole or any part of a turnover has escaped assessment. The expression for any reason covers a wide area and certainly includes a change of opinion. The petitioner, in the result, succeeds only in respect of the enhancement of the rate by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order dated 18th October, 1963, but fails in other respects. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1967 (11) TMI 104 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ons for not resorting to appeal in this case are weighty. Against the face of the instructions, presenting of appeals was futile, but in the case before the Supreme Court, the assessee did not file appeal because he was required to deposit the sales tax first. The considerations in the two cases are not in pari materia. In my view, the second preliminary objection also fails. As already stated, the merits of the petition are not being assailed on behalf of the State. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, I quash the orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Patiaia, respondent No. 3, dated 9th October, 1958, (annexure B), dated 11th February, 1960 (annexure C), dated 4th October, 1962 (annexure D) and dated 25th June, 1964 (annexure E). The sales tax realised for these years were in contravention of law and I direct that they be refunded to the petitioners. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (11) TMI 103 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sions were unreasonable restrictions on the petitioner carrying on his business. We are not convinced that the maintenance of registers of the transactions by the miller-petitioner imposes any restrictions on his carrying on the business. We are inclined to the view that that would only set his business on regular lines. We are not therefore persuaded that these provisions are violative of the right of the petitioner to carry on business or to hold property. Even otherwise, we would say that these are reasonable restrictions having regard to the view taken by the Supreme Court that the provisions as to search and seizure are reasonable restrictions. Vide Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver(1) and confiscation is a reasonable restriction as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Papanna v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntakal(2). The petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs, Government Pleader s fee of Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (11) TMI 102 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the meaning of section 2(c) of the 1947 Act and section 2(d) of the 1958 Act in respect of its activity of generation, distribution, sale and supply of electrical energy. The second question is answered by saying that the turnover representing the sale of coal-ash is liable to sales tax. The answer to the third and fourth questions is that the assessee-Board is not liable to be taxed on the turnover representing the supply of steam to the Nepa Mills and on the turnover of the sales of specification and tender forms. In view of our answer to the first question, the fifth question must be answered by saying that the assessee-Board cannot be made liable for purchase tax. 14.. As the first and the main question was referred at the instance of both the assessee and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the other questions were referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of these references. References answered accordingly.
-
1967 (11) TMI 101 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the other questions mentioned above having been raised, the writ petitions were admitted. The orders have the effect of imposing financial liabilities. The petitioners have a fundamental right to carry on business without any illegal restrictions or impediments. Inasmuch as the assessment orders have, on the face of these orders, been made upon a complete misconception of the law and a large number of cases are affected, we have decided to interfere notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. Consequently, we allow these writ petitions and quash the order of the Sales Tax Officer in each case. The result is that the assessment proceedings will now be deemed to be pending in each case before the Sales Tax Officer who will go into the evidence from a legally correct angle and pass fresh assessment orders containing the necessary findings. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (11) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT
Best judgment assessments under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 challenged - Held that:- Appeal allowed. There is considerable force in the second point urged on behalf of the respondent, viz., that the assessment of the respondent was made by the assessing authority without giving him an adequate opportunity of being heard. The first notice of 8th March, 1961, was held by the assessing authority himself not to have been properly served, and the second notice of 23rd March, 1961, was also obviously not properly served. The service which was accepted by the assessing authority was affixation at a shop which used to be visited by the respondent. The shop was not his own and his place of residence was known. No attempt was made to serve the notice on him at his residence. In these circumstances, the proceedings taken ex parte against the respondent were not justified.
-
1967 (11) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Sales Tax Authority is not competent to issue a notice under sub- section (2) of section 8 after expiry of three years prescribed by section 10?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The notice under section 11(2) is only a step in the proceeding for assessment and does not disturb the continuity of the proceeding. Therefore, when the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice against the respondent under section 8(2) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, a fresh proceeding to assess turnover which has escaped assessment was not commenced, and section 10 of the Act was not attracted thereto.
-
1967 (11) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in pursuance of this power of revision the Deputy Commissioner could direct a further inquiry under rule 14-A made under section 19 of Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1953?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the case before us, the turnover of the assessee now sought to be taxed in the revisional proceedings did not escape liability to tax under the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and, on the other hand, was actually taxed by him, which imposition of tax was set aside in appeal. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer could not possibly take proceedings under section 11A in respect of that turnover.
For these reasons, we hold that the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax against the appellant are not incompetent and the High Court was right in refusing the writ sought by the appellant.
-
1967 (11) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT
The Explanation to section 2(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959) is not ultra vires the Legislature.
Whether any part of the Explanation (1) to section 2(n) is ultra vires the Legislature does not fall to be determined in this case, for, we are of the view that the transactions of the respondent-Society fell within the substantive part of the definition of the expression "sale", and on that account those transactions are taxable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959).
The appeals must therefore be allowed, and the petitions filed by the Society dismissed. In view of the order passed by this Court on August 12, 1965, when leave was granted to appeal to this Court, the appellant will pay costs of these appeals to the respondent.
-
1967 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the transactions in the present case are sales or contracts of agency is a mixed question of fact and law and must be investigated with reference to the material which the appellant might be able to place before the appropriate authority. The question is not one which can properly be determined in an application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution - Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (11) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Enforcement of orders of courts ... ... ... ... ..... Act. That decision, therefore, does not lay down anything contrary to what I have stated earlier. In S. Natarajan v. V. Narasimha Ayyangar AIR 1930 Mad. 74 this question was left open by the Bench. It observed We do not propose to decide the question, in what manner, in the event of an application being made to the High Court, is the order to be enforced, by direct action or by its being transmitted to the Tanjore court ? That is a point which does not arise at present . That decision, therefors, is not helpful. Since I am in respectful agreement with the Madras decision in In the matter of the Indian Companies Act AIR 1927 Mad. 271 and no decision contra has been brought to my notice, I would hold that the learned District Judge was right in holding that the District Court had the necessary jurisdiction to enforce the order transferred to it by this court. I can find, therefore, no valid reason to interfere The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1967 (11) TMI 66 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... that it is advisable that I would say on it at this stage of the conflict between the parties. The second matter to mention is the company s insolvency. Insolvency in connection with a winding-up petition means inability to pay debts as they fall due and not a deficiency of assets as compared with liabilities. Indeed, insolvency in that sense, of inability to pay debts as they fall due, clearly appears from Mr. Mann s own affidavits. The evidence of such insolvency of both companies is altogether so conclusive to my mind that I do not propose to analyse or particularise it, especially as I do not rely on it for my conclusion but come to my conclusion despite it. My conclusion, therefore, is, in the case of each company, for the reasons which I have given at length, that the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctions which they claim, untif trial or further order unless, of course, the parties, by chance, consent to agree to treat this motion itself as the trial of the action.
-
1967 (11) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Associations and partnerships exceeding certain numbers – Prohibition of ... ... ... ... ..... he signature by an agent on his behalf is invalid . made the observation relied upon by Sri Gupta. It will therefore be seen that the passage relied upon by Sri Gupta does not even remotely purport to support his contention. Thus, for the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that as the number of persons constituting the partnership in question exceeds 20, in all the three years with which we are concerned in this reference, the Income-tax Officer was right in treating it as invalid under section 4(2) read with section 4(3) of the Indian Companies Act, and in refusing registration to it under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, I would, therefore, in agreement with Jagdish Sahai J., answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative. Let the papers of this case be returned to the Bench concerned with the answer proposed above. By the court The question is answered in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the department which we assess at Rs. 400.
-
1967 (11) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Cost and expenses payable out of assets in a winding-up by Court
-
1967 (11) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT
Articles of association - Regulations required in case of unlimited company, company limited by guarantee or private company limited by shares, Directors – Power of, Director – Interested, not to participate or vote in Board’s proceedings and Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1967 (11) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles, Charges – Registration of, Directors – Power of, Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Debts of all descriptions to be admitted to proof and Overriding preferential payments
-
1967 (11) TMI 32 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 476, or section 479 A of the Code applies to the instant complaint?
Held that:- the proceedings under section 26A before respondent No. 1 must be treated as proceedings in a court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Income-tax Officer, however, cannot be treated as a revenue court. Though, therefore, proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings in a court and section 195(1)(b) applies, neither section 476 nor section 479A of the Code would be applicable. It was, therefore, not incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to follow the procedure laid down in either of these two sections. The first contention of Mr. Gupte, therefore, must fail.
As regards second contention, the question raised by him would be one of evidence the appellants can raise it before the Magistrate trying the complaint. We, therefore, decline to go into that question. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
