|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 555 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed judgment in T.R.C. No. 137 of 1981 and other cases have been adverted to. It was held that if the goods sold form integral part of Since reported as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd., at page 125 supra. the assessee s goods or machinery or they were used in connection with the assessee s business it will be a case where the turnover relating to those goods can be brought to tax. The Appellate Tribunal had failed to advert to any one of these decisions. 3.. We hold that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law. We set aside the said decision, and order a remit of the matter to the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal will restore the appeal to file and consider the matter afresh, in the light of the amended definitions contained in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and also in the light of our decision in T.R.C. No. 14 of 1985 (General Sea Foods v. State of Kerala 1988 71 STC 130). 4.. The T.R.C. is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 554 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... small-scale industry unit and issue the same set of cash memos or bills is not free from doubt. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been prejudiced by the delayed rejection of the petitioner s application. It has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has not collected any taxes for the goods manufactured and sold by him. Since the application was belatedly disposed of he was prejudiced. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has stopped applying for eligibility certificate for his carrying on business in the usual course and collecting sales tax on and from 1st April, 1984. Having regard to all these factors I feel that the petitioner s eligibility certificate should not have been withheld for the year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984. Therefore, there will be an order, as prayed for, in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 553 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... time (as per exhibit P6) that it suddenly started quibbling about what it had said in exhibit P5. I think this conduct itself disentitles the petitioner from seeking relief under article 226. Again, by exhibits P4 and P8, the petitioner has only been asked to produce the books of accounts and if the firm fails to do so, all that will follow is the completion of the assessment, without reference to the firm s objection in exhibit P2. If the action of the authorities in finalising the assessment proceedings as above will be illegal or improper because of delay, or other considerations the petitioner can conjure up, it will then be time enough for the firm to approach this Court. Questions of law or legality apart, I am of the view that in exercise of its discretion under article 226, this Court should decline to interfere with exhibits P1, P4, P8, etc., at least at the present stage. The O.P. is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 552 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ms which declarations he gave to M/s. Siva Metal Industries. The stand is factually not correct. The petitioner has annexed to O.J.C. No. 12 of 1980 an attested copy of his certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 as annexure-2 which shows Ramesh Chandra Dave, the proprietor of the petitioner-firm, to be a registered dealer for the sale of cylpebs amongst other articles. This position has not been disputed by the department. In that view of the matter, the order of assessment under the Central Act cannot be allowed to stand. 5.. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the assessment orders both under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act are set aside. Theassessingofficerisdirectedtomakefreshassessmentfor the year 1978-79 in the light of the discussions as above. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 551 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ound the plea was negatived. This finding was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the purchases of the petitioner were not purchases in the course of export, relying on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Cashew Products (P.) Limited v. Sales Tax Officer 1971 28 STC 730. A similar plea was negatived by a Bench of this Court in disposing of T.R.C. Nos. 125, 133 and 134 of 1985 by judgment dated 10th December, 1986. Notwithstanding the above, counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. Vijayan Menon, very strenuously urged that the purchases were in the course of export. Apart from the forcible plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner, we do not find any material to sustain the said plea. It is absolutely without any foundation. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to reject the contention advanced before us by the counsel for the revision petitioner. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 550 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for registration as a dealer. That will show that he wanted to deal in the goods. We are of the view that the sale of the automobile parts by the assessee was merely an isolated transaction, which has nothing to do with the business carried on by the assessee. The automobile parts were obtained by him in settling his accounts with one Vaidyanatha Iyer. It cannot admit of any doubt that if Vaidyanatha Iyer had sold the entire goods, he would have got exemption under rule 9(g) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. It is not possible, on the basis of the materials now before us, to say that the petitioner (assessee) was a dealer or that he was doing the business in automobile parts, when he sold the entirety of the automobile parts, obtained from Vaidyanatha Iyer, to M/s. Surendra Automobiles. We declare that the assessment of the said sum by the assessing authority is unjustified and illegal. The assessment, if any, made, will stand modified to that extent. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 549 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial as paper, rubber, asbestos, copper, etc., inserted between the surfaces of a flange joint to make it impervious to leakage. Briefly stated, to pack means to put things into a box, a bottle or bag, etc. . It means to put a particular thing in a protective container or cover, to enable it for easy and convenient transport or for storing. The Appellate Tribunal held that the cup or the container, like the outer cover used in this case, is used for packing and in the circumstances, the ice-cream and ice-sticks are foods packed and sold under the brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. We concur with the aforesaid finding and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal. 4.. There is no merit in this tax revision case. It is dismissed. The matter relates to six different years and the petitioner has paid six court fees, Rs. 600 for the tax revision case. We dismiss this tax revision case with costs, including counsel s fee Rs. 1,000. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 548 - KERALA HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... on 5A of the Act. The Revenue has come up in revision. 2.. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Nambiar. In identical circumstances, a Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kunhalavi and Co. 1987 66 STC 100 1987 KLT 317 has held that the purchase value of timber cannot be brought to tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It was held that the sizes, scantlings, etc., of timber are the same as timber logs and therefore the purchase value of the said timber could not be brought to tax under section 5A of the Act. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. case 1985 60 STC 213 and the Bench decision of this Court in Kunhalavi and Co. case 1987 66 STC 100 1987 KLT 317, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 8th September, 1986, is justified in law. 3.. No interference is called for in the said decision. We dismiss the tax revision case in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 547 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xecution petition under section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with section 14 of the Sikkim Sales Tax Act, 1983. Section 386 authorises a Magistrate to issue warrant of attachment only of moveable property. As such, the order of the learned Magistrate ordering the issue of warrant for immoveable properties was without jurisdiction. So, the impugned order dated 19th June, 1987, of the learned Magistrate is quashed in so far as it relates to the immoveable properties of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the Income-tax and Sales Tax Department shall be free to move in the matter of the realisation of the sales tax dues as permissible under law. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 546 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o motu power of revision under this Act and there is also no provision for cross-objection in a revision. Subsequent amendment in the Act providing for an appeal and filing of crossobjections therein also indicates the restricted revisional power under subsection (1) of section 14 involved for interpretation in this matter. From the above discussion it follows that the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue misconstrued sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act to hold that a cross-objection filed in the department s revision preferred thereunder was tenable for granting relief to the assessee who had failed to avail the right of revision available to it under sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The order dated 1st January, 1973 passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in the special appeal is set aside and that of the Single Bench of the Board of Revenue dated 16th September, 1970 is restored. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 545 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... than and then received back for ultimate user within the State of Rajasthan. It is urged by the learned counsel for the department that since a part of the process of manufacture of die-casting was not performed within the State of Rajasthan, this condition of the goods being used within the State was not satisfied, even though all the remaining conditions for grant of exemption under the notification were satisfied. In my opinion, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected this contention. Merely because the goods were sent only for die-casting out of Rajasthan and then received back for completing the process of manufacture to enable its user within the State, it cannot be said that the user of the same was not within the State of Rajasthan. This condition of the notification was, therefore, also rightly held to be satisfied in the present case. There is no ground to interfere in this revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 544 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e sale transactions, one for the sale of empty tins and the other for the sale of vegetable oil. In that decision the finding was that there was no separate or implied agreement to sell empty tins separately and moreover, the assessee was not competent to do so as he was not a registered dealer for the separate business of selling empty tins. That decision is also, therefore, distinguishable on facts. As a result of the above discussion it follows that the Board of Revenue was unjustified in holding that the empty tins used as packing material for the vegetable oil were also to be taxed at 7 per cent instead of 3 per cent under the aforesaid notification dated 27th March, 1971. The revision is accordingly allowed and the assessing authority is directed to make a fresh assessment on both these counts, namely, relating to packing material and freight in accordance with the above direction. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 543 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1, has clarified that all insecticides are pesticides. In the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, copper-sulphate has been specified at page 322 as blue vitriol . At page 163 of the dictionary blue vitriol has been specified as a salt, occurring in large transparent, deep-blue triclinic crystals, appearing in its anhydrous state as a white powder used chiefly as a mordant, insecticide, fungicide, and in engraving. Also called blue copperas, blue stone, copper sulfate, cupric sulfate. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that copper-sulphate is a pesticide as specified in the First Schedule, entry 55 of the Act. On this basis, the 2nd sales by the respondent will be eligible for exemption. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding so. No interference is called for with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. This revision is without merit. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 542 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sell these materials with a profit-motive as there is no evidence on record to reach that conclusion, even though it was submitted by the learned Government Advocate that by sales of such materials the petitioner-mills have obtained a substantial amount. But as held by the Supreme Court that by itself is not enough to tax the petitioner unless it is proved that these sales were effected with a profit-motive, about which admittedly there is no material on record. 12.. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that the question referred to us for our opinion has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as under In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the sales of materials like discarded machinery, chemicals, scrap, empty drums, unsuitable and unserviceable stores, etc., were liable to tax. The references are answered accordingly. Cost as incurred. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 541 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... work and labour and that there was no sale of goods. We are of the view, that on the analogy of a photographer, dealt with in the decision in Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B.C. Kame 1977 39 STC 237 (SC), this is essentially a contract to do skilled labour. Moreover, if the teeth prepared by the dentist for a particular customer, was not taken delivery of by him, it would be a waste. In other words, what is manufactured is not marketable goods. That is a very vital factor to decide whether there is a sale of goods. In the light of the above, and for the reasons contained in paragraph 3 of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in stating that teeth setting charges is not a transaction of sale of goods exigible to levy of sales tax under the Act. No interference is called for with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 8th August, 1986. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 540 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act and the Board was justified in remanding the case to determine that liability. 4.. Now it was not disputed before us that the Board had the power to remand a case if the facts and circumstances of that case warranted such a remand. In the instant case, however, the Board having affirmed the finding of the assessing authority as well as that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there was no material to show that the assessee had clandestinely entered into transactions revealed from the papers seized from its former employee, any further enquiry to fish out some information against the petitioner was not justified, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1974 34 STC 195 (Panduranga Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh). Our answer to the question referred to this Court, is, therefore, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 5.. Reference answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 539 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te specifically brings in an agent who carries on business on behalf of the principal within the definition of dealer . Turnover as defined in the Act takes in the aggregate amount for which the goods are bought or sold by a dealer. Thus the Act makes the agent a dealer, and his entire turnover is exigible to tax. Viewed in this manner the respondent is liable under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act for the entire turnover. In the above circumstances, the respondents contention that their liabilities are co-equal with that of their principals who are cardamom growers and since some of them are not liable to be taxed in respect of cardamom sold by them, under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or Surcharge Act, the auctioneer (assessee) is not liable to tax, has only to be rejected and we do so. In the light of what has been stated above, we allow these revision petitions and reverse the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 538 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n of the Supreme Court in Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax 1954 26 ITR 765. 5.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on the reframed question, we are of the opinion that since the assessee-opposite party had, apart from not filing returns for the remaining three quarters, had also filed a false return for the first quarter, it was liable to penalty on both counts, namely, for not filing returns for three quarters under section 17(3) of the Act and for filing a false return in respect of the first quarter, under section 43(1) of the Act. 6.. Our answer, therefore, to the reframed question is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that no penalty under section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, could be levied even where a dealer had furnished a false return in respect of the first quarter. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 537 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person - Mutuality of interest ... ... ... ... ..... ent charges and after sale service charges during the warranty period were essential for putting the goods into the market and that such charges were includible in the assessable value. The respondents stated that they would have no objection to such charges, if any, incurred by their main dealers being added to the assessable value. They also undertook to supply all the necessary data to the Asstt. Collector in order to enable him to quantify these charges so that the assessable values could be approved expeditiously. 6. emsp In the result, we dispose of this appeal in terms that the sale price of the respondents to their main dealers plus money value of the costs incurred, if any, by the main dealers on account of advertisement/publicity and after sale service during the warranty period should form the basis of assessment. The Asstt. Collector should work out the assessable values on these lines expeditiously and thereafter grant the consequential refund to the respondents.
-
1987 (7) TMI 536 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
........
|
