|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 266 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 258 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ued C forms, the petitioner did not, thereafter, issue any C forms for the purchase of the machinery for the balance amount of Rs. 32 lakhs. These aspects of the matter also were not taken into consideration by the assessing authority or the revisional authorities. These are all relevant matters to be considered by the authorities, but the same was not done in the case of the petitioner. In the light of the above stated facts, exhibits P1, P2 and P6 orders are illegal and hereby set aside. But setting aside of these orders will not stand in the way of the respondents to make fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The penalty, if any, recovered from the petitioner would be adjusted against any order that may be passed by the authorities or in case no penalty is imposed, the same may be refunded to them. The original petition is allowed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 257 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... de to complete it within the time period provided for original proceedings, unless it is impracticable to do so. We are surprised to find that some of the reassessment proceedings are undisputedly pending for nearly a decade. It is stated that the revenue involved in those proceedings are substantial, and pursuant to the direction given by various authorities, payments have been made by the assessee against the disputed demand. Keeping the matter in abeyance for long periods is no way beneficial either to the assessee or to the Revenue. Let those proceedings which are pending for more than five years before various authorities be disposed of before the year 1994 comes to an end. We direct the assessee-petitioner to produce our order before various authorities so that necessary action can be taken to comply with our direction for early disposal of the proceedings. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 256 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... discussed in the order. As quasi-judicial Tribunal, it was expected of it to adjudicate the plea raised. When the petitioner has produced in this Court copy of the affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, Advocate, giving details of his illness on suffering heart ailment and his hospitalisation in the PG1 which is supported by out patient tickets referred to above, we find no reason to discard the same. Ordinarily this matter could have been remitted back to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner for adjudication, but keeping in view that the matter is pending for a couple of years, it is thought fit to remit the case to the Joint Excise and Taxation Officer to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits. This writ petition, is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders annexures P-7 and P-9 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits. S.T.C. No. 57 of 1993 stands disposed of as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 255 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rule-making authority of the State Government. 19.. The petitioner has challenged the notice issued to it to show cause why the certificate should not be cancelled. The challenge is based on the decision reported in 1990 79 STC 149 (MP) FB (Kherstone Crusher v. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jabalpur) and analysis of the actual work being done in the establishment of the petitioner. Consideration of this question involves entering into disputed questions of fact which we do not think we should resort to at this stage. It is for the petitioner to reply to the notice and place his contentions before the authority concerned. 20.. We direct that in case the petitioner submits a reply to the show cause notice within two months from today, the second respondent shall, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, take a decision under rule 14-C, sub-rule (4) of the Rules. Subject to this direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 254 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icated upon in the first instance by the assessing authority, who has set the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act in motion. Petitioner s representation in that regard is still pending before the assessing authority, namely, the 3rd respondent. It is only therefore necessary to direct the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation evidenced by exhibit P4, he being admittedly the authority in seizing of the files of the firm Asian Trading Company. Accordingly I direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation evidenced by exhibit P4, if it is still pending, in accordance with law with opportunity to the petitioner to be heard as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending orders on exhibit P4, proceedings pursuant to the notices exhibits P5 and P7 will be kept in abeyance. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 253 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner, was wholly unforeseen. It was unreasonable, when the petitioner s appeal was accepted by the Tribunal and it became entitled to the refund of the tax paid by it, the impugned legislative measure was brought on the statute book. This provision in so far as it operated retrospectively against the petitioner was wholly of a confiscatory character. It cannot be invoked to deny the petitioner what is legitimately due to it. Consequently, it is held that the provisions of the amending Act to the extent of retrospectivity are not applicable to the petitioner. The question posed at the outset is answered accordingly. As a result, the order of the respondents in refusing to refund the amount of tax paid by the petitioner is set aside. They are directed to refund it along with interest in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the Act. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 252 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontended that no interest is leviable. Before the Board of Revenue it was contended that monthly advance payment towards tax is not tax as defined in section 2(r) of the Act and, therefore, no interest can be levied for non-payment of monthly advance towards tax. The question which has been referred by the Board of Revenue is also as reproduced above. On the perusal of the above question and on the basis of definition given under section 2(r) of the Act, I am of the view that, even the monthly payment of advance tax is tax. The contention that advance tax for the first two months is less than the liability according to books was not raised before any authority and, therefore, cannot be examined here. Thus, this contention of the assessee has also no force and, therefore, non-payment of advance tax required under section 7(2A) of the Act is subject to the interest in accordance with the provisions of section 11B. The revision has no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 251 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amount of Rs. 41,00,000 by the department. If there was a compulsion made by the State Government for taking delivery of the tractors and for the payment of the price for and on behalf of the State, nothing would have been easier for the petitioner, than to ask the State Government for orders or directions in writing, but no such document was filed. The reasons given by the Board of Revenue are based on material on record. The transaction in question for the assessment year 1972-73 was held to be a sale transaction on the basis of the reasons aforementioned by the Board and we do not find any infirmity or illegality in this finding. 5.. The finding that petitioner transferred 40 tractors for a sale consideration of Rs. 41,00,000 to the State is a finding of fact and on this finding no question of law arises to be considered by this Court. The petition under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 250 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ustify it. In the instant case, except stating that there was no mens rea, no material was placed to support the plea of bona fide belief. In such a circumstance, action of the Revenue authorities in concluding that the petitioner was not acting bona fide cannot be faulted. 6.. The other question that survives is what would be appropriate quantum of penalty. The maximum limit is provided in sub-section (1) of section 10-A which is a sum not exceeding one-and-a half times tax which would have been levied under sub-section (2) of section 8 in respect of sale to the dealer of goods, if sale had been a sale falling within that sub-section. Considering the fact that the item has been subsequently incorporated in the certificate of registration, we feel that penalty of Rs. 22,000 which is approximately difference of tax payable and paid, would meet the ends of justice. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 249 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... service was sought to be effected only at Faridabad address, where obviously the petitioner was not residing and had closed the business and had communicated about his Delhi address to the authorities. If the substituted service had been effected at Delhi address of the petitioner, probably we might not have interfered. Thus, we consider it appropriate to allow one more opportunity to the petitioner to fight the case on merits, as the allegation in the petition is that the petitioner is in possession of ST-15A forms, on the basis of which relief could be claimed by him in other words for nonproduction of the same, the assessment has been framed. Thus, while allowing the writ petition, we remit the case to the Assessing Authority, Faridabad, for fresh decision in accordance with law. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce ST-15A forms before the Assessing Authority. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear there on February 21, 1994. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 248 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... officer (second respondent), pursuant to the orders of remand instead, he may be allowed to proceed with the assessments, till up to the stage of passing of final orders thereon and await the outcome of the Tribunal in the second appeals, that are stated to be pending. If the outcome of the said appeals pending before the Tribunal ends in favour of the department, then there may not be any impediment to passing final orders on the assessments and issuance of demand notices therefor for payment of tax due, if any. If, on the other hand, the said appeals end in favour of the assessee, it goes without saying that there may not be any necessity to pass any orders, afresh on those assessments, pursuant to the direction of the remand order. 22.. With the directions and observations as above, all these writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, all W.M.Ps. are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 247 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ow that he has not taken delivery of 4.002 M.T. of stainless steel sheets as per the allotments. 5.. We have seen that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the assessment on the ground of presumption in respect of these four transactions. That being the position, we cannot find fault with the order of the Tribunal that in the absence of any documentary evidence to support the purchases on various dates, in respect of the 4.002 M.T. of stainless steel sheets, the assessment on that turnover cannot be sustained. On the facts and in view of the finding of the Tribunal below, we do not think that we can accept the argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader that it is for the assessee to prove beyond doubt that she has not taken delivery of the stainless steel sheets in question. As the finding of the Tribunal is based on a perusal of records, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 246 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... so to be remembered that the adjustment of the amount towards the tax due for the year 1978-79 had been effected in view of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the directions of this Court in O.P. No. 564 of 1983. Though he obtained subsequently an extension of time, it appears to me that it was the failure of the petitioner to comply with the directions of this Court that resulted in the present situation being created. In my view that the action of the authority in issuing exhibit P11 notice cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. I must also observe that the petitioner has not shown as to what happened to his appeal relating to the assessment year 1978-79 and what is the final liability of the petitioner determined for that year. In view of all these circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition. Consequently, I dismiss this original petition. I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 245 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... vinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the same decision to contend that the matter was appealable in case an assessee denied the liability altogether as was being done in the present appeal. A reference was also made in this connection to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v. Miss. K. M. Tawadia, ITO 1987 165 ITR 99. The learned Department Representative, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the ground as raised by the assessee is appealable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961. For the purposes of deciding the issue on merits, we restore the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 244 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the loss of jewellery. As regards the value, the learned Members have, in my opinion, correctly come to the conclusion that it has to be with reference to the cost price and that it has to be ascertained. In any case, I am not called upon to express my view thereon, nor am I called upon as mentioned in the beginning of this opinion, as to the point of time at which the loss was to be allowed to the assessee as a deduction. Although in a way the law on this question is settled that the loss must be allowed on the date when the assessee incurred the loss irrespective of the results of the investigations which might take several years to be completed and any recovery of the articles, the value thereof can always be brought to tax under section 41 of the Income-tax Act. For these reasons, I express my opinion in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to the opinion of the majority.
-
1994 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... uestion of counting the six months rsquo period from the date of purchase of the goods by such person would have not been provided for in the statute. Once a provision has been made that the relevant date for counting the period of six months will be from the date of purchase of the goods, the intention of the legislature is very clear and will apply strictly in cases where the claimant of refund is a person other than the manufacturer. I therefore hold that in the case of claimants of refund under Section 11B by persons other than the manufacturer, the proviso reading lsquo Provided further that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest rsquo shall not apply. 7. emsp Examining the claims of refund in the light of findings referred to above, I find that the claim has been made much after six months from the date of purchase of the goods. I therefore hold that the refund claim is barred by time and therefore the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (1) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper Maker’s Felt Needle Punching Machine - Customs exemption ... ... ... ... ..... he lower authority rsquo s finding, therefore, in my view is not correct on that point. If interpretation of the adjudicating authority is accepted, it will, in my view, lead to anamoly lsquo Needling rsquo or lsquo Needle Punching rsquo is an important process in manufacture of felts. If lsquo Composite Felt Making Plant rsquo is permissible under S. No. 19, needle loom would ordinarily be included in the said plant. There would have been no need to show it separately under an inclusive clause. Further lsquo needle loom rsquo would be unnecessarily duplicated-one in the lsquo Composite Felt Making Plant rsquo and another separately. 20. emsp However, in view of my earlier finding, benefit of Notification 489/86 cannot be extended to the appellants. Accordingly, I reject the appeal of the assessee. 21. emsp In so far as the Revenue rsquo s appeal is concerned, I agree with the findings of my learned brother, Shri S.L. Peeran, Judicial Member. Therefore, that is also rejected.
-
1994 (1) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import - Concessional duty ... ... ... ... ..... er in the case of BHEL does not contain a decision that modernisation and revamping are equivalent to substantial expansion rdquo . Learned SDR has also relied on 1989 (42) E.L.T. 78 (T) and 1983 (12) E.L.T. 829 - both are Tribunal rsquo s decisions taking a view similar to that in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 153 that modernization and revamping do not mean substantial expansion. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are of the view that Tribunal rsquo s judgment reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 153 is a complete answer to the case of the appellant and is an authority against them. It has also noticed and distinguished BHEL decision relied upon by the appellant. We also note that Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries 1983 (12) E.L.T. 829 (T) has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as noted in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 153. Hence the issue is now well settled against the appellants. Therefore, their appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (1) TMI 234 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... pany judge on November 24, 1992, after considering the entire matter at length. At this stage, what I am required to consider is as to whether it is a fit case in which the petition should be admitted and ordered to be advertised. The facts which have been narrated hereinabove clearly show that when a demand was made by the petitioner, the balance claimed by the petitioner had been confirmed on behalf of the company. Thereafter, several demands were made by the petitioner and, finally, a statutory notice was served by the petitioner. It was delivered to the company and a reply was given by the company. The amount was not disputed. What the company pleaded was that it had been incurring losses and the cash flow of the company was under heavy strain. It can, therefore, be said that there is ample justification to hold that no bona fide dispute arose in this case. In my opinion, this is a fit case in which the petition deserves to be admitted and advertised. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (1) TMI 229 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Compensation - For deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... to deal with. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant would admit that the complainant did not suffer any substantial loss on account of the belated issuance of shares to her. Her main grievance is that for getting her shares which she could have obtained as a matter of routine, she had to approach the District Forum and then the State Commission, that in the process she had incurred much expenditure apart from having some amount of anxiety till the shares reached her. We, therefore, consider that there is some room for compensation, which in this case we shall limit to a token amount in view of the fairness of the opposite party and their plea of magnitude of dealings. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The complainant is awarded a token compensation of Rs. 500 payable by the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein. Payment to be done within two months from today, failing which the amount shall earn interest at 15 per cent. No costs. Appeal allowed.
........
|
