|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 509 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... passed by the third and second respondents respectively. Consequently, we direct the first respondent to remit the amount of Rs. 3.70 crores to the writ petitioner forthwith. We are also of the view that though the first respondent is not legally entitled to seek refund of the said amount of Rs. 3.70 crores, but since it has enjoyed the said amount from the date of refund, the first respondent shall also pay interest to the writ petitioner on the said amount. Accordingly, we direct the first respondent to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum on the said amount of Rs. 3.70 crores from the date of refund till the date of remittance of the said amount to the writ petitioner. 46.. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with costs against the first respondent, quantified at Rs. 10,000 which shall be paid by the first respondent to the A.P. State Legal Aid Board within a period of four weeks from today. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 508 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs, other than manufacturers and planters. The intention of the notification, therefore, is to collect tax on the turnover of rubber representing cess paid from manufacturers and planters alone. This is so made with an intention to protect a separate class, viz., the dealers. Petitioner being a manufacturer is not eligible for exemption. The question whether petitioner, the manufacturer within the State or outside the State is not relevant. Such a distinction has not been made while granting exemption. I do not find any arbitrariness or discrimination in granting exemption to a class of persons, namely, traders/dealers. The Government has also given reasons why the traders alone should be given exemption and not to the manufacturers. For all these reasons, no grounds are made out to interfere with the assessment order exhibit P2. Original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 39308 of 1998 in O.P. No. 22300 of 1998 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 507 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ransfer of property in goods for valuable consideration. Even a reference has not been made to the amended provision or to sub-clause (iv) of clause (h) of section 2. In this situation, we cannot accept the contention that the assessment orders are valid. These are based on the finding that there was transfer of property in the goods. Factually, it is not so. Legally, the order of assessment cannot be sustained. 9.. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Authority. We do not think it is necessary for us to do so. We shall only set aside the order. It is, however, clarified that in case, the Assessing Authority is legally entitled to do so, it shall be competent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 10.. No other point has been raised. 11.. In view of the above the impugned orders of assessment are set aside. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 506 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... form. Simply because the deduction has not been given to an item used in another form, it cannot be considered to be beyond the legislative competence. The works contract under section 5-B and article 366(29-A)(b) using the words in other form refers to the power of the Legislature to levy the tax. The power which has been exercised in enacting the provisions of section 5-B is in accordance with the constitutional mandate. But to which item, and in what circumstances exemption is to be given is ancillary and incidental to the power to levy the tax and is not necessarily to be exercised in respect of the entire material used in works contract used in some other form for which the charge is properly created. As such I do not consider that the provisions of rule 6(4)(m)(i) could be declared as ultra vires the legislative competence. Accordingly this petition stands dismissed. For other points, the petitioner may file the appeal within four weeks from today. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 505 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... and does not give rise to any question of law warranting any interference in exercise of this Tribunal s revisional jurisdiction. In the applications for revision filed by the CTO(AE) the only question framed is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Board was justified in dismissing the appeals of the department. As such these applications for revision filed by the CTO(AE) have no force, as they raise no questions of law and are dismissed. In any case this Tribunal has while disposing of the applications for revision filed by MX upheld the imposition of penalty at the reduced level. 57.. The applications for revision filed by MX are rejected. The matters stands remanded to the CTO(AE) for re-computing the tax liability, interest and penalty in accordance with the Board s directions. This judgment in original is kept on the file of Revision Petition No. 57 of 1994 with authenticated copies being kept on the files of the other petitions. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 504 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .. The learned Government Advocate has relied upon a decision given in S.N. Guggari and Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka 1998 110 STC 426 (Kar) where sale by commission agent on behalf of outside members was held not liable to be deducted for the purpose of computation of total turnover. In that case there was turnover by commission agent of sale and therefore the deductions provided under rule 6 was held not applicable. The judgment therefore does not solve the controversy raised in the present case. Since the raw material purchased by the petitioner and used for the manufacture of goods do not form part of the turnover and there is no sale in respect of the goods transferred to the branch, the turnover tax under section 6-B cannot be levied. 6.. Assessing authority shall recompute the total liability of turnover tax in the light of the observations made above. Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 503 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... endment in the notification dated July 6, 1989. 6.. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the various authorities. In view of the consistent trend of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, there remains no doubt that the respondents are estopped from changing the incentive scheme to the detriment of the petitioner. On the assurance and promise of the non-petitioners, the petitioner established a new industry and invested huge amount. It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments over again because I am in full agreement with the view expressed by my brother Judge, Israni, J., in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. 1999 116 STC 544. 7.. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, the notification dated May 7, 1990 (annexure 3) is hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 and 1989. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 502 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the addition of more than Rs. 1 lakh. Applying the aforesaid authority, it must be held that resorting to the average running stock method is not the universal rule and the application thereof will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. That being so, it was the duty of the assessing authority to state the reasons to resort to the average running stock method, application of which has given rise to the huge addition. No such reasons have been given either by the assessing authority or by the appellate authority, who affirmed the application of the average running stock method. In the result, the T.R.C. succeeds and is allowed. The Tribunal s order dated March 6, 1992 is set aside and the case is remitted to the Tribunal with the direction that the Tribunal if it wants to affirm the order of the assessing officer, will state the reasons as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the average running stock method could be applied. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 501 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Bangalore) Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer 1998 109 STC 543, it was held by the Kerala High Court as follows ..........Once he becomes the registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act he is entitled to get the C forms from the prescribed authority. On a reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it will be seen that once the registered dealer obtains certificate authorising him to purchase the goods mentioned therein, he is entitled to get C form from the officer authorised under the Act to issue ........ Therefore the contractor executing works contract is a dealer entitled to receive C forms from the prescribed authority. 9.. The inevitable conclusion is that answers to both the questions referred to the larger Bench are in the affirmative. The reference is answered accordingly. The cases be placed before the Division Bench for disposal in terms of answers given. S.N. Phukan, C.J.-I agree. P.K. Tripathy, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1999 (1) TMI 500 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ber (Judicial) is proceeding on leave. We have while hellip hellip hellip . ordered that status quo should be maintained. We are told by Shri Vipin Kumar Jain that recovery proceeding has been started by adjusting rebate claimed hellip the duty confirmed in the impugned order. It is hereby ordered that pending hearing of the appeals on 16-2-1999 and till passing the order, no recovery shall be made towards any duty or penalty amount on any of the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 499 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Customs - Limitation - Extended period - Misdeclaration - Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rce in the appellants rsquo contention that no allegation of misdeclaration could have been made against the appellants when the accepted practice followed in all the Collectorates in the country was followed by appellants as well. We, therefore, uphold the appellants rsquo contention that the extended period under Section 28 could not have been invoked in the facts of the appellants rsquo case. We have also taken note of the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order in HCL HP Limited v. CCE, New Delhi (supra) wherein it was held that having regard to the practice followed by the Collectorates throughout the country of allowing clearance on the ratio of 60 40 between Diskettes and accompanying manual there was no justification for confiscating the goods on the ground of misdeclaration or for imposing penalty. There was also no scope for demanding the differential duty. 7. emsp As a result we set aside the impugned order with consequential benefits to the appellants under law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 498 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... viso to Para 4 are not satisfied and therefore, the benefit of the notification should not be extended unless the factory is registered, as mentioned in the main Para 4. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Consultant, Shri J.M. Sharma. The situation in the present case is more or less akin to the situation in Accura Industries, mentioned supra even otherwise we are of the view that clauses (a) and (b) envisage two different situations. Clause (a) relates to the factory and clause (b) relates to the manufacturer and the condition of fulfilment of notification is with reference to the manufacturer. That having been satisfied in the present case, the benefit of notification cannot be denied, as has been held by the Tribunal in the cases relied on by the learned Consultant. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 496 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Offences by companies ... ... ... ... ..... ngs may be brought against them in respect of any negligence, default or breach of duty and in these situations they can apply to this Court to be relieved from such proceedings. This Court by virtue of section 633 has similar powers to relieve them as the Court before whom the proceedings will be filed by virtue of sub-section (1) of section 633. 4. On a consideration of the facts pleaded by the petitioners herein no doubt they are technically in default of the provisions of the Companies Act. However, in their reply to the show-cause notice as well as in the petition they have pointed out that they have been unable to hold the annual general meeting or file returns for the reasons beyond their control. In these circumstances it is possible to accept the plea that they have acted honestly and reasonably. In the light of that, the following order ORDER Company petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 494 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... carried out according to that price. It is also settled law that the differential amount between the amounts collected towards freight and insurance and the cost actually incurred on freight and insurance are not be included in the assessable value. In the instant case also, the issue involved is the same, irrespective of whether the appellants had collected these amounts in all cases or not. We find that the SCN and the orders mentioned that the appellants had a part I price and Part II price in respect of their clearances. The appellants rsquo contention that they sell the goods both at the factory gate and from depots also remains unchallenged in the records of the case. In the circumstances, we hold that the impugned orders demanding duty on the differential amount between the amounts realised under these two headings and amounts actually spent is incorrect. The appeals are, accordingly allowed and impugned orders are set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 491 - HIGH COURT OF BOMABY
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... sional liquidator is appointed. The entire purpose or a scheme behind the sub-section is to protect the company if the order of winding up is made or provisional liquidator is appointed so that the court itself if possible disposes of the matters pertaining to the assets and properties of the company. The above section therefore to my mind will not apply in so far as the present case is concerned. The need for permission from the BIFR is to enable the sick company to rehabilitate the unit. In such a scheme the interests of creditors are also taken into account and protected. If the machineries leased are allowed to be taken away, the scheme of rehabilitation itself will collapse. It is not as if the applicants have no remedy at law. The applicants can move the BIFR to enable them to take proceedings for recovery of the property. That is so expressly provided for in section 22 itself. For the aforesaid reason, I find no merit in this application, which is accordingly rejected.
-
1999 (1) TMI 489 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Winding up - Powers of Court on hearing petition ... ... ... ... ..... der to be implemented all this time and we are told that some tenders have been received by the provisional liquidator pursuant to the advertisement which was issued in accordance with the impugned judgment. Consequently, we find no merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. So far as the second submission is concerned that the further proceedings regarding the sale of the assets should be stayed inasmuch as the appellants have been deprived to move the BIFR because of the non-supply of the copies of the accounts despite the order dated 3-8-1998 - Bharti Telecom Ltd. rsquo s case (supra), 10-11-1998 and a separate order passed on 26-11-1998, we do not consider it appropriate to deal with this submission at this stage and leave it open to the appellant-company to move the learned company judge in that regard. If any such application is moved, appropriate orders would be passed. 5. Subject to the observations made above, this appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 483 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... The credit is not admissible as per Trade Notice No. 89/1989, dated 3-11-1989 issued by Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai II hence the same is receivable under Rule 57-I. rdquo 5. emsp It is axiomatic that quasi-judicial proceedings with which we are concerned here, the Show Cause Notice must give the basis on which the duty is sought to be collected. The Show Cause Notice does not state as to how Trade Notice No. 89/1989 issued on 3-11-1989 would be applicable to the facts of the case and how the appellant has transgressed the provisions thereof. No doubt the A.C. has given full detailed order as also the Collector (Appeals) but yet I am of the view that the quasi-judicial authorities cannot proceed unless the basis on which the proceedings are initiated is reflected in the Show Cause Notice. Hence I am of the view that the entire proceedings by the lower authorities is wrong in law and I, therefore, set aside the same granting consequential relief. 6. emsp Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 482 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Stay order ... ... ... ... ..... ded computers and on printers and software which were traded items. 3. emsp The Tribunal in its order passed on 5-2-1998 had considered the clarifications of the Department of Electronics and the point with regard to the question as to whether the processes undertaken would amount to manufacture. It had ordered deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs out of duty of Rs. 40 lakhs and penalty. Further points urged in the stay application had also been considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 27-9-1998. We also note that almost a year has passed after the stay order passed. In these circumstances we see no reason to modify the stay order or to accede to the request made by the Dr. S.K. Gupta for hearing the appeal without pre-deposit. In reply to a query, Dr. Gupta pleaded that it would not be possible to make further deposit even within the next three months or so. In these circumstances we dismiss the application and accordingly both the appeals are dismissed under Section 35C of the Act.
-
1999 (1) TMI 481 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand when appellate authority introduces a new ground - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ds either under Chapter 71 or Chapter 85. We also note that the Asstt. Collector while deciding the issue had held that the goods shall be classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.35 or 85.36 depending upon the voltage. We note that there was no discussion in the order of the Asstt. Collector regarding classification of the goods under chapter heading 8538. Thus, we see the Collector has not confined himself to the impugned order which was before him but travelled beyond the scope of that order and introduced entirely new heading for classification of the goods. In this view of the matter, we consider it a fit case for remand. In the circumstances, the papers are remanded back to the Collector (Appeals) to examine the issue only in the light of the impugned order and contentions of the parties before him and pass appropriate orders after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard in person. The Impugned order is set aside. 9. emsp Appeal is, therefore allowed by remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 480 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation, fine and penalty - Export ... ... ... ... ..... Customs Act as also of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Taking all these factors as discussed above into account, I upheld the confiscability of the foreign currency but reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 1.25,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. In view of these discussions, penalty on M/s. M.K. Shah Export Ltd. is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to 15,000/-. As penalty has been imposed on the Company and no extra role has been attributed to Shri Himansu Shah who is only one of the Director of the Export Company, penalty on him is set aside. Penalty on Shri Ghanshyam Patel is also reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Shri T.T. Lapcha has claimed the ownership of 55 U.S. which are already included in the total U.S. 15,555 for which the total redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- has also been fixed. Accordingly, no separate order is required to be made in respect of U.S. 55. Shri T.T. Lapcha rsquo s appeal is dismissed accordingly. 6. emsp All the four appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
........
|
