|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 365 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hether mere initiation of revision proceedings would entitle the assessing authority to ignore the orders of the appellate authority and not to comply with the provisions of rule 35, does not fall for our consideration in this case, so we do not propose to express any opinion on this aspect and leave this question open. From the above discussion it follows that in the instant case the respondent is bound to give effect to rule 35 and implement the order of the appellate authority within two months from the date of receipt of that order by the dealer. As that time has expired, we direct the respondent to give effect to the order of the appellate authority passed on October 29, 1992, without reference to the circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, No. II Division, Guntur dated September 24, 1993 in Rc. No. 72/93 as it does not in any way defer the respondent from acting under rule 35. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 364 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llegal and unsustainable. The writ petitions have to be allowed. I do so. I quash exhibit P4 in O.P. Nos. 14991, 15020 and 15021 of 1992, exhibit P3 in O.P. Nos. 6743 and 6744 of 1993, exhibits PI to P3 in O.P. No. 16931 of 1992 and exhibits P1, P4 and P7 in O.P. No. 3430 of 1994 to the extent tax is levied on the amount of subsidy. The assessments in O.P. Nos. 16931 of 1992 and 3430 of 1994 have been taken up in appeal under section 34 of the KGST Act. Since I have dealt with the question in common with the other writ petitions, I do not think it necessary to relegate the parties to the appellate remedy inasmuch as I have held that the amount of subsidy is not part of the taxable turnover of the petitioners. The only other direction required in these two cases is to the Appellate Assistant Commissioners concerned to dispose of the appeals dealing with any other points that are raised therein in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 363 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... refunded. In the panchnama it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 3,403 has been deposited by Rasool Lilgar against the demand while in the proceedings dated July 28, 1993 the said amount has been treated as a security. This also shows the conduct of the respondents as to in what manner they have acted. Since it has been proved that there is not a valid service of the assessment order and demand notice the action of the respondents is declared to be illegal. A cost of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand) is imposed on the respondents, which they would be free to recover from the officer responsible for not effecting the proper service of the notice, assessment order and demand notice and the officer who has attached the shop on March 31, 1993 without verifying the fact of proper service of the assessment order and demand notice and mentioning different fact with regard to the payment of the demand by Rasool Lilgar. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 362 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titioner admittedly gave cheques towards advance tax based on his own statements filed under section 12B(1) of the Act though cheques bounced for want of funds. The petitioner has not stated in his petition about the bouncing of the cheques. 17.. In para 15 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated thus Apart from these technicalities, the petitioner does not intend to postpone the payment indefinitely but in view of financial constraints faced by the petitioner-company, they are approaching this Court at this stage to pray reasonable time to make substantial payments towards the arrears of advance tax payable under the Act. 18.. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case including what is stated in para 15 of the writ petition extracted above I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 19.. In the result, for the reasons stated, I pass the following order (1) The writ petition is dismissed and rule is discharged. (2) No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 361 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the quoted portion of the Additional Commissioner s order shows that the Additional Commissioner was not sure whether such an action is permissible. Conclusions are indefensible and accordingly we quash the order of the Additional Commissioner vide annexure-5. Taxing authorities are supposed to be watch-dogs of the Revenue and not bloodhounds. Unfortunately Additional Commissioner has come to conclusions, which reflect undesirable anxiety to deny an assessee, what was legitimately due to it. We direct that interest due to the petitioner be paid forthwith, not later than one month from today. Since loss to the State Exchequer has been caused on account of inept handling by the authorities, we direct Government in the Finance Department to fix up responsibility and take appropriate action against the erring officers. The writ application is accordingly allowed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 500 (five hundred). S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 360 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... them. The mere fact that the petitioner who is transporting the goods to Tamil Nadu was not a registered dealer is not relevant nor sufficient to infer an attempt at evasion of tax which is so essential to sustain a detention under section 29A. Since that ingredient is absent and having regard to the documents produced in this case the notice, exhibit P4 and the detention have to be quashed. I do so. The amount of security, if any collected from the petitioner will be refunded to him with all expedition. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 359 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner does not depend upon any clarification issued by the State Government. Under section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the State Government is empowered to appoint certain categories of officers including Joint Commissioners for the purpose of performing the functions respectively conferred on them by or under this Act. It is not in dispute that the Joint Commissioner has power under section 20 to revise the appellate orders passed by the Deputy Commissioners. When Ms. Seethadevi was appointed to be in full additional charge of the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from September 15, 1989, she was entitled in law to exercise the statutory power vested in her under section 20 of the Act. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, has correctly held that the revisional order passed by Ms. Seethadevi does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The T.R.C., therefore, fails and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 358 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roneous to assume that without reference to the merits of the case, all orders passed on appeal in favour of the assessee will have to be reversed by exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act irrespective of the merits of the case. Neither is such a power conferred by section 20 on the revisional authority nor can such a power be inferred from the said provision. The scheme of the Act provides appeal against the order of assessment and a revision against the order of the appellate authority, under specified circumstance, which is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Dr. Moorthy, relied upon two judgments in V.K. Uchal v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore 1967 20 STC 67 (Mys) and S.S. Muddanna v. State of Karnataka 1993 89 STC 90 (Kar). In our view those judgments are not relevant to the issue in the writ petition. For the above reasons we do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 357 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the above view of the matter, the application is disposed of as under The revised gross turnover arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 2, shall be reduced by a sum of Rs. 6,232.50 for the purposes of assessment. The impugned orders dated December 23, 1976, February 12, 1980, May 4, 1982 and July 7, 1983, passed respectively by respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 stand modified accordingly. The applicant shall be entitled to the benefits of the interim order dated February 24, 1984, passed by the High Court to the extent of modification of the amount of gross turnover, if the applicant had in fact complied with the said order. Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 shall return the seized books of accounts and documents within 6 weeks from date after obtaining authentication by the applicant or his representative on xerox copies prepared by the said respondents. In the circumstances of the case no cost is allowed. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree.
-
1994 (4) TMI 356 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tly Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57 and 59 of 1990 are hereby allowed, and the impugned judgment and orders dated April 20, 1990 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in respect of assessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act are hereby quashed, and the ex parte assessment orders passed by the assessing authority on March 19, 1981 in respect of the aforesaid assessment years are also hereby quashed. The Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 60 of 1990 and 63 of 1990 relating to the proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75 both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act are hereby dismissed, and the impugned judgment and orders dated April 20, 1990 referable to the assessment year 1974-75 remain intact to the aforesaid extent only. The stay orders are hereby vacated.
-
1994 (4) TMI 355 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee must be given. In view of the aforesaid position we are of the view that the fuel injection equipment which is a spare part of the diesel engine cannot be regarded as a spare part of the motor vehicle merely because a diesel engine is also fitted in the motor vehicle. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued prohibiting the respondents from assessing any sales tax from the petitioners in excess of 6 per cent on the turnover of fuel injection equipments. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated March 24, 1990 (contained in annexure 3) to writ petition No. 3675 of 1990. A writ in the nature of mandamus is further issued restraining the respondents from assessing the petitioners for various years prayed for in the writ petitions on the turnover of fuel injection equipments in excess of 6 per cent. No order is made as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 354 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hority and the first appellate authority was that the goods were sold to several parties in Calcutta and the agents used the bill books of the Corporation. 9. One of the modes by which the assessee can claim non-liability to tax is by producing F forms under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. By producing the F forms, the assessee in the present case had discharged the initial burden. Unless the F forms were found to be defective in any respect, the assessee was not required to produce any further material other than the evidence of despatch of goods, which is referred to in section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the question of law that fell for consideration before it. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and accordingly it is dismissed. As the assessee is also a State owned Corporation, we are not inclined to award costs. 11. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 353 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... e affairs of the appellant, who had attended the office of the Competent Authority on the given date, namely, May 11, 1993, and who was given the information as to the right of appeal. Perusing the appeal papers, we do not find any mention of Shri Raichuria as having been in the picture in the matter of filing of the appeal or in any manner. We again do not have any affidavit of Mr. Raichuria, as to what was the discussion that took place with the Competent Authority, when the latter happened to advise him as to the right of appeal and who had the order dated March 12, 1993/March 16, 1993, all these days. In the absence of any details, we do not feel satisfied in this case about the plea now being made, and keeping in mind the nature of the order, which is the subject-matter of the appeal, which in our view does not in any manner seriously prejudice the party, we do not feel inclined to exercise our discretion for condoning the delay. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 352 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Clubbing of - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the appellants succeed in this case. The learned JDR had submitted that there had been violation of Central Excise Rules and Counsel fairly submitted that for such violation penalty is imposable. We notice that the penalty imposed on M/s. Vishnu Forge is excessive. There is violation of the Rules in clearing the goods for work to the other units without issue of proper gate pass and this calls for imposing penalty. Ld. Collector has imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 on M/s. Metal Cutters and M/s. Steel Treaters under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules. We hold that this imposition is justified and we do not disturb this portion of the order. As regards the imposition of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Vishnu Forge under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, we notice that it is too excessive, as there is only violation of certain provisions of law. As such in the ends of justice the penalty is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). The appeals are allowed on the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Tribunal - Inherent Jurisdiction of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... n terms of the Order S. No. 38/89-D, dated 24-2-89 as modified by Miscellaneous Order No. 52/89-D, dated 31-3-89. They have also submitted that they have deposited further a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and a sum of Rs. 5,52,610.40. It is their contention that an amount of Rs. 37,52,610.40 had been paid in terms of the order of the Tribunal which ought to be adjusted against the demand held to be payable in addition to the adjustment of the duty on split yarn paid by the assessee. Therefore, the appellant rsquo s prayer in para 8 of the application deserved to be considered. Therefore, we exercise our inherent, jurisdiction in terms of the Rule 41 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules and allow the prayer made in para 8 of the application as noted above. The lower authorities is directed to consider the submissions of the applicant in para 8, while computing the duty demand made in terms of the Final Order of the Tribunal in the above case. The above application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 348 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Inherent powers of Court ... ... ... ... ..... ores and so considering the production capacity of the company, these figures show that the company is over-booked with orders and orders are no problem. Whatever be the degree of improvement, there seems to be a slight swing towards the better side during 1993-94. I may make it clear that I am not embarking on a discussion whether the interim administrator is able to give the necessary boost to the company, but I am only considering whether there is immediate need to interfere with the present interim administrative set up or in other words, whether the urgency is such that it cannot brook a short delay of three or four months which it may take for disposal of the main company petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there is immediate necessity to interfere with the interim agreement at this stage. For the above reasons, the company application fails as it is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... the issue is decided against the respondent-company. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not shown any circumstance or the command of law regarding the responsibility of the official liquidator to be bound by the respondents alleged liability of the company before passing of the winding up order. Issue No. 2 was also not rightly decided by the learned single judge. In view of what we have held hereinabove, it cannot be said that the respondent-company was entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 27,174.28 by way of set-off. The judgment of the learned company judge being against the facts and law cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. In the result the claim petition of the appellant-company is allowed and the decree for the recovery of Rs. 7,189 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the date of the petition till the decretal amount is paid is passed in favour of the appellant-company and against respondent No. 1 with costs throughout.
-
1994 (4) TMI 335 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... rest prior to the date of the filing of the petition was claimed at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum. In the instant case, it has not been proved that the appellant-company was entitled to the payment of any interest from the respondents. However, as the respondents have failed to make payment of the amount after the filing of the petition against them, the appellant-company is held entitled to the payment of interest at 12 per cent, per annum with effect from the filing of the petition and not prior to that. Issue No. 1 is, therefore, decided accordingly. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned company judge. The decree for the recovery of Rs. 19,694.60 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, with effect from the date of filing of the petition in this court till the realisation of the whole amount is passed in favour of the appellant-company and against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with proportionate costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... he claim of the Revenue after the income-tax had been determined and its payment had been demanded from the liquidator. A similar view has been taken in B. V. John v. Coir Yarn and Textiles Ltd. 1960 30 Comp Cas 162 (Ker), Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors-Ltd. v. ITO 1972 42 Comp Cas 96 (Ker) and Joshi Trading Co. ( P.) Ltd. v. Essa Ismail Sait 1980 50 Comp Cas 801 (Ker). In my opinion, the execution proceedings pending before the Rent Controller, Delhi, cannot be transferred to the file of this court as the company court cannot convert itself into a Rent Controller and perform the functions which exclusively vest in him under the Rent Act. These proceedings are not other legal proceeding as contemplated in section 446 of the Act nor can the Rent Controller which is a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction be said to be a court within the meaning of section 446(3) of the Act. In the result, I find no merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT
Refund claim as the levy of duty was not justified in law - Held that:- Appeal partly allowed. As it is not brought to our notice that the respondents have alleged and/or established that they have not passed on the duty to the purchasers/consumers. The normal presumption is that they have done so. If they say otherwise, it is for them to allege and establish the same. In the absence of any such allegation and proof, the direction of refund is not called for.
The directions of the High Court "to re-do the orders in accordance with the law and in the light of this order" and the further direction to the authorities "to refund the amount to which each of the petitioners is entitled within three months" as well as the directions to the said effect in the several orders under appeal are set aside
........
|
