|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 70 Records
-
1971 (10) TMI 99 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th which he was aggrieved. If a dealer felt aggrieved with any part of the order of the revising authority passed under section 10 he should make a separate application under section 11. The opinion of the Division Bench in M.C.C. No. 195 of 1964 decided on 3rd May, 1966, referred to above, is binding on us. Further we agree with the view taken in Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. 1970 26 S.T.C. 65. We therefore decline to answer questions (2) and (3) on the ground that the assessee should have made an application complying with the provisions of section 44 if he wanted these questions to be referred to this court for its opinion and on his failure to do so, these two questions have been referred in an unwarranted manner. 15.. In the result, the first question is answered as indicated by us in paragraph 10 of this order in favour of the department, and we decline to answer questions (2) and (3). Parties shall bear the costs of this reference.
-
1971 (10) TMI 98 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate applicable to the said material and not at the rate applicable to baled cotton. (3) No answer to this question is called for as it was not pressed before us and there is no material on record to support it. (4) Hessian used in packing material did not fall in the category of cloth for purposes of entry No. 6, Schedule I, to the State Act. (5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could not be held that the sales of packing material were casual. The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was a dealer in packing material as well. (6) The sale of 1,300 cotton bales could be treated as complete only after the goods reached the destination, i.e., after 16th January, 1965, and that the Tribunal was right in holding that the rate in force after that date was applicable. The references are decided accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 100 per case. References answered accordingly.
-
1971 (10) TMI 97 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d transaction to the tune of Rs. 14,717 was effected by the petitioner-firm is based on no evidence and is contrary to law. (ii) Even assuming that in fact the petitioner effected such a transaction, then the taxable turnover of the petitioner would be enhanced only to the tune of Rs. 14,717. There are no other materials on record to establish a rational nexus between the amount suppressed and the amount enhanced. 7.. In view of our aforesaid answer, we propose to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal and called for by us thus It is agreed amongst the learned counsel for the parties that the question referred by the Tribunal and question No. (4) called for by the court need not be answered. Questions Nos. (1) to (5) and 6 are answered in the negative. 8.. The references are accordingly answered as indicated above, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The reference fee deposited be refunded. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1971 (10) TMI 96 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case of Shankerjee Raut GopaIji Raut v. State of Bihar 1968 22 S.T.C. 241 A.I.R. 1968 Pat. 329., have laid down the principles and the necessary ingredients which constitute an inter-State sale. So far as the dealer is concerned the obligation on him is only to produce the evidence and it is upon the assessing authority to deduce from that evidence whether the necessary ingredients are there. In the cases here, on the seven facts, which have been noticed in my learned brother s order, as having been found by the Tribunal, does constitute good and sufficient evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the case, we accept the contention of the applicant that the movement of the goods outside the State is an integral part of the agreement of sale . This finding does connote the necessary ingredients, which, as laid down in the same two case laws, constitute a sale of an inter-State nature. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (10) TMI 95 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y manner. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the contention that section 8(2)(b) is unconstitutional or void or in any way infringes articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, we may also notice that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of P. Chandra Reddy, C.J., and Jaganmohan Reddy, J., (as he then was) in a case reported in East India Sandal Oil Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1962 13 S.T.C. 79. have also held that section 8 is constitutional and does not violate article 14 or article 303 of the Constitution. We cannot, therefore, with respect, agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Sitalakshmi Mills case 1968 22 S.T.C. 436., as, in our opinion, it does not lay down the correct law. As a result of the above, we find no force in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1971 (10) TMI 94 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the second ground. That the groundnut sales in relation to the turnover of Rs. 2,53,256.74 were effected after 10th November, 1964, was not disputed. The exemption granted in respect of the said turnover cannot be rectified in proceedings under rule 38. With respect to the disputed turnover of Rs. 1,79,037.80, relating to groundnut cake, it was submitted that the sales were effected during the entire period from 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965. If from the records, the first respondent can show that any particular portion of the said turnover relates to the period prior to 10th November, 1964, it is open to him to rectify his order and to bring to tax the said turnover under section 6(1A). For the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 1st June, 1970. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (10) TMI 93 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of escaped assessment and the learned Judges of the Full Bench held that if the proceedings were in respect of escaped income, section 11-A would apply. Nature of proceedings will not change on the case being remanded to the assessing authority. The decision in State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi 1964 15 S.T.C. 153 (S.C.) A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1413. and the observations of the Lahore High Court in Madan Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab and N.W.F.P. 1935 3 I.T.R. 438 at p. 439. do not apply to this case. In fact, the argument raised in the later case has been rejected by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Firm Jagmohandas Vijay Kumar s case 1970 25 S.T.C. 74 (S.C.). We thus find that in accordance with the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Firm Jagmohandas Vijay Kumar s case 1970 25 S.T.C. 74 (S.C.). the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The appeal is consequently accepted and the respondent s writ petition dismissed with costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1971 (10) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee's turnover in respect of safety matches is not liable to tax on the ground that the sales effected by the assessee are not the first sales in the State?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As it would appear that the sale by the assessee was effected in U.P., which if applied to the facts in this case, would indicate that the first sale by the Sivakasi firms was in Mysore. In that view, the question of inter-State sale not being urged as necessary for consideration, it was rightly held by the High Court that the sales in question fell within clause (a) of explanation (3) of section 2(t) of the Act; as such this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1971 (10) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court of Calcutta had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit?
Whether any part of the cause of action for the suit arose outside Bihar in consequence of the order of the appellate authority?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Unable to agree with the High Court that any part of the cause of action for the suit arose in Calcutta. Hence we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and restore that of the single judge but not on the ground that found favour with the learned Judge.
-
1971 (10) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is ultra vires?
Whether Notification No. ST-7122/X-900(16)64 dated October 1, 1964, issued under section 3-D(1) of the Act imposing purchase tax on oil-seeds is invalid as it contravenes section 3-AA of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court of Allahabad has consistently taken the view that it is open to the State Government to levy purchase tax in exercise of its powers under section 3-D even in respect of goods covered by section 3-AA. We are in agreement with that view.
-
1971 (10) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT
Vires of section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 questioned - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The rule of discrimination does not rule out classification. The power of classification under a fiscal law is larger than in the case of other laws. Hence there was nothing wrong in the Legislature making a classification between licensed dealers and dealers who are not licensed. Even when a dealer who is not licensed is liable to pay purchase tax, the ultimate burden falls on his principal. For these reasons, we do not see any basis for the contention that section 3-D is violative of article 14.
-
1971 (10) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the delay in depositing the admitted tax should be condoned?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As the appellate authority disposed of the appeal on the short ground that it was barred by time and that it had no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation this matter will have to go back for reconsideration and re-decision of that authority. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for making appropriate directions for reconsideration and rehearing of the appeal by the appellate authority under the Act. The assessee will be entitled to costs in this court.
-
1971 (10) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Himachal Pradesh Government was competent to alter the sales tax law as desired by it without the concurrence of the Central Government?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As the scheme contained merely administrative instructions then the Government having made the representation referred to earlier, on the basis of which the exporters had exported certain goods, the Government was estopped from going back on the representation made by it. In this case, again, there was no question of issuing any direction to make a law or abrogate an existing law. But in the circumstances of the case, we think this is eminently a fit case where the parties should be asked to bear their own costs both before the High Court as well as in this court. There is no doubt that the Deputy Commissioner did give an impression to the bidders that the Government was considering the abolition of sales tax on the sale of Indian-made foreign liquor. Relying on that information the bidders must have given very high bids. The Government of Himachal Pradesh tried its best to persuade the Central Government to agree to change the law but it failed. In the process, the appellant must have suffered financially.
-
1971 (10) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sales of cotton yarn and staple fibre yarn made to various dealers in Jaipur and other parts of Rajasthan by the respondent-firm by endorsing the railway receipts in their favour, are taxable under section 3(b) read with explanation 1 of the Central Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The question of law, the appellant wanted the Tribunal to refer to the High Court did arise from the order of the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue was not justified in refusing to refer that question to the High Court. We are also of the opinion that the High Court was not justified In rejecting the application of the appellant.
-
1971 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Meetings to ascertain wishes of creditors or contributors
-
1971 (10) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Charges –Registration of, Winding up – Application of insolvency rules ... ... ... ... ..... rd to, among other things, debts provable in the winding up proceedings. The applicant-company being the holder of a statutory lien is thus in the position of a secured creditor. Though the lien to retain possession of the goods as a bailor does not confer a right of sale on the applicant-company, the applicant-company, as an unpaid vendor of the spare parts supplied, has a right of re-sale. Having regard to these circumstances, I am of the view that in the interest of justice and for the purpose of closing the administration of the insolvent-company, it is necessary that the machineries, which are in the possession of the applicant-company, are ordered to be sold in public auction by the applicant company after due publicity so as to enable the applicant-company to adjust its dues including the cost of sale out 6f the sale proceeds. If there is any balance left, it shall be paid over to the official liquidator. The application is ordered in these terms. No order as to costs.
-
1971 (10) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Central Incometax Officer's computation should be hold to be legally binding in all cases and in all circumstances on the Agricultural Income-tax Officer?
Held that:- There was no provision in the Kerala Act or the rules authorising the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to disregard the computation of the tea income made under the Income-tax Act. If, therefore, an assessment had been made by the Central Income-tax Officer before the assessment of income by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer the latter was bound to accept the computation of the income made by the Central income-tax authorities. The principle which has been applied in the present case by the High Court is on the same lines and it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the question whether in every case the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is bound to accept the computation made by the Central income-tax authorities and only allow additional deductions which may be permissible under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (10) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the income of the properties put in possession of the male members under the karar of 1909 continues to be the income of the family?
Held that:- On an examination of the various clauses in the karar, it is obvious that the joint status of the parties was not disrupted. The arrangement made in the karar was only an arragement for providing maintenance. No party was given any absolute right in any portion of the family properties. The properties mentioned in the karar continued to be the properties of the family. The arrangement made under the karar cannot even be considered as a permanent arrangement. The properties were not divided on the basis of tavaies. The liability to maintain the male members, aged more than 21 years excepting parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, continued to be that of the karnavan. The karar also does not provide for devolution of the properties allotted to parties Nos. 2 to 4. Hence, those properties must necessarily go back to the possession of the karnavan after those members die. We have earlier seen that the responsibility of performing the marriage ceremonies of the female members continued to be that of the karnavan. He is also responsible for the payment of land revenue in respect of the family properties excepting properties included in schedule " A " to the karar. Under these circumstances, it, is not possible to hold that the karar in question embodied an irrevocable settlement In the. every nature of things, 'the arrangement made under that karar must be held to be one which is revocatole if there is any substantial chaw in the circumstances of the family.
For our present purpose it is sufficient if we hold that the properties allotted for the enjoyment of the various members of the family under the karar continued to be the properties of the family.
-
1971 (10) TMI 32 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the tax due from Manavikraman Raja was realisable from the assets in the hands of the receivers?
Held that:- The assessment made on Kunjunni Raja in his capacity as the successor sthanamdar was an invalid assessment. Legally, he never became the sthanamdar. There was no sthanam after the death of Manavikraman Raja. With the death of Manavikraman Raja the sthanam came to an end. The only persons who could have represented the estate of Sreemanavikraman Raja were his personal heirs. They were not made parties to the assessment. No notice of the assessment proceedings was given to them. Kanjunni Raja was not one of his legal representatives. Even if it is considered that the sthanam properties had devolved on the members of the tarwad by succession, Kanjunni Raja alone could not have represented the entire body of successors numbering 692. There was no question of any bona fide enquiry by the assessing authority. It was clearly a case of misunderstanding of the legal position. Further, it does not appear that Kunjunni Raja was assessed as the legal representative of the deceased sthani. He appears to have been assessed as the successor sthani liable to pay the debts due from the estate. Hence, the assessment was not made in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (10) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT
Agricultural Land, Legislative Competence, Legislative Powers, Net Wealth, State Legislature, Wealth Tax
|
