|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 364 Records
-
1995 (2) TMI 419 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Goods Act, 1930. No intention was shown in the contract to make delivery of or to pass the property in the motor launch before it was completed. Clearly, the contract was a contract for sale of the complete motor launch afloat at Bombay harbour. 27.. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the transaction of building and supplying one twin screw steel motor launch by the assessee to the DirectorGeneral of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi for Rs. 12,10,000 was a works contract and not a contract for sale of the launch. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of the above answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not survive and hence need not be answered. 28.. This reference is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (2) TMI 418 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e of Century Spinning Mfg. Co. 1989 73 STC 277. It is also now well-settled that it is not necessary that a dealer should be enabled to pass the incidence of tax on sale to the purchaser in order that it might be a tax on sale of goods see 1974 34 STC 73 (SC) AIR 1974 SC 2272 (Kodar v. State of Kerala) . 17.. The result is that there is no violation of articles 14, 19, 300A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution as regards imposition of turnover tax on sale of tea by private treaty by the applicants or as regards the increase in the rate of turnover tax or lowering down of the exemption for payment of turnover tax by the amendments in 1987 and 1992. The application is, thus, to fail. 18.. The application is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Interim order passed by the honourable High Court, Calcutta on June 24, 1983, in C.R. No. 7590(W) of 1983 is vacated. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).I agree. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 417 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with the aid of Explanation (2) of the Act. 26.. However, we do not propose to answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative or negative because in our opinion, such answers, if read out of context, might be misunderstood and misconstrued. We have already discussed at length all aspects of those questions from different angles and given our opinion thereon. Under the circumstances, in our view, it is expedient to reframe the question. We reframe the question as under Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty levied on the assessee under section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. And in the light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons set out above, we answer the same in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 27.. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Question reframed and answered in the negative.
-
1995 (2) TMI 416 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut above that the appellate authority can permit the assessee to raise additional grounds at any time. 14.. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee could not challenge the determination of tax in an appeal filed by it against an order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer in form 30 by way of additional ground. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to move the appellate authority for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal and when so moved, the appellate authority has to consider the same on merits. 15.. In that view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 16.. In view of the above answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not survive. Hence, we decline to answer the same. 17.. This reference is answered accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (2) TMI 415 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion in favour of the assessee, question No. 2 has become academic and hence need not be answered. 8.. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that it was pointed out to us by the counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal has indicated in its order that in the declarations issued by the purchasers in terms of the notification under section 8(5) of the Act, some of the inapplicable words have not been struck off. We do not propose to express any opinion in that regard. Suffice it to say that if the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is any deficiency in the declarations filed by the assessee which is material or substantial, while giving effect to our opinion in this reference, it may give an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the same. 9.. In the result, this reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 10.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1995 (2) TMI 414 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of those goods out of the territory of India. It is the sale by Aluminium Industries to Kamani Engineering which might meet the description of sale falling under sub-section (3) of section 5. 12.. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the sale made by the assessee under invoice No. 2062286 dated June 4, 1980, for Rs. 8,29,600 to M/s. Aluminium Industries Ltd., Bombay, was not effected by transfer of documents of title as envisaged by section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, it was taxable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no or as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (2) TMI 413 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... riate Commercial Tax Officer are also set aside. We have noted the fact that a long list of transactions and a copy of the report received from the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay, have been supplied to the applicants by now. If the Deputy Commissioner wants to rely on any other material of any kind, he must supply that to the applicants and then fix a date for hearing of the impugned notices dated April 20, 1994. Thereafter he will dispose of the proceedings for the aforesaid two periods in accordance with law after giving the applicants a reasonable opportunity of making submissions on the materials supplied to them. In doing so, he will keep in mind the observations we have made about the compliance of the principles of natural justice and our findings and directions on the two other points urged by Dr. Pal, on behalf of the applicants. Thus the main applications in RN-50 of 1995 and RN-51 of 1995 are disposed of without any order for costs. Applications allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition, the State Government in exercise of power under clause (a) of section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948), had notified that no tax under the aforesaid Act shall be payable with effect from November 1, 1991, on the sale of goods mentioned in the Schedule given in the aforesaid notification. Item No. 6 to the aforesaid Schedule includes broom made of soonk (that is jharoo made of broom). Thus, the circular contained in annexure 3, and notices in pursuance thereto, contained in annexures 1 and 2, requiring the petitioner to pay sales tax, in our opinion is totally contrary to the notification issued by the State Government, contained in annexure to the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and the circular contained in annexure 3, dated August 3, 1993 and notices dated September 14, 1993 and September 23, 1993, contained in annexures 1 and 2 are hereby quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 411 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it can attract the second part of section 5(1). The statutory authority and the appellate authority ought to have considered this aspect of the case. Decision on the question without finding whether the two necessary conditions contemplated in the second limb of section 5(1) of the Act would not be sustainable. The consequence is that the Board of Revenue will have to re-hear the appeal and decide the matter afresh. 9.. In the result, we hold that the question whether the disputed sales were exempt from sales tax would rest on the finding to be recorded as to whether the sales were effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India and without deciding this question, the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the sales did not constitute sales in the course of export of goods. 10.. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Board of Revenue.
-
1995 (2) TMI 410 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e 6(cc)(ii) would go to show that the exemption is available on the sale value of packing materials whether or not such amounts are specified and charged for by the dealer separately in respect of the goods not liable to tax at the hands of the assessee. 12.. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was not concerned with the contents in rule 6(cc)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, the said decision would not render any assistance to the department to contend that the sale value of the containers in the present case is taxable. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, on a plain reading of the provisions contained in rule 6(cc)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules will hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption of tax on the sale turnover of the containers, in which, petroleum product was sold. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal stands set aside and the revision filed by the assessee stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 409 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ions in RN-94 of 1994, RN-95 of 1994 and RN-96 of 1994 are allowed. The amounts of penalty ultimately imposed by the authorities below are reduced by 50 per cent in each case. In other words, the amount of penalty in RN-94 of 1994 is reduced to Rs. 1,40,420, in RN-95 of 1994 to Rs. 1,33,387 and in RN-96 of 1994 to Rs. 1,15,733. If any amount has been collected from or deposited by the applicant in excess of the aforesaid amounts of penalty, the same should be refunded to the applicant within a period of four weeks from today. If, however, no penalty has been paid by the applicant, he is directed to pay the aforesaid reduced amounts of penalties in these three cases within four weeks from today. The sum of Rs. 75,000 which was deposited in each case previously for obtaining the declaration or transit permit should be adjusted against assessment of tax for the relevant transactions. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of without any order for costs. Application allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 408 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the defect in the C form was ignored or was not taken notice of. That certainly falls within the wide ambit of the expression any reason in section 19(1). The learned single Judge who decided 1996 102 STC 240 (MP) supra 1994 27 VKN 343 (Laduram Ramniwas v. State of M.P.) made a casual observation that these words have a restricted meaning without explaining why it is so and without indicating the restriction. There is no express restriction contained in section 19(1). The language of the statute does not imply any restriction either. Therefore, there is nothing in the scheme of the statute or the provisions in section 19(1) of the State Act to indicate any legislative intent to give only a restricted meaning for these words. In these circumstances, we find no reason to quash the notice issued by the 4th respondent. 15.. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 500. Security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 407 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... upreme Court reported in 1993 88 STC 204 (Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan), the question as to vires of the challenged provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is to be reopened and in our view we do not find that such provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act as being challenged before us suffer from any inherent defect or infirmity as to constitutional limitations. Those succeed the tests as laid down under law and the contentions raised by the petitioner have no merit in this regard. We, however, find that the challenge to the show cause notice by the petitioner is premature. It is open to the petitioner-assessee to file its show cause replies by raising all the points permissible under law and it is equally open to the Revenue to adjudicate the matter strictly in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court whether the State Legislature cannot transgress its constitutional limitations. With such observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion of the Meeting of the Committee of Secretaries held on November 12, 1993. I have no reason to doubt that such a request would be considered by the nodal Ministry and the AIR and Doordarshan on its merits, keeping in view the public interest. In case of any difference of opinion or dispute regarding the monetary terms on which such telecast is to be made, matter can always be referred to an Arbitrator or a panel of Arbitrators. In case, the nodal Ministry or the AIR or Doordarshan find such broadcast/telecast not feasible, then they may consider the grant of permission to the organisers to engage an agency of their own for the purpose. Of course, it would be equally open to the nodal Ministry (Government of India) to permit such foreign agency in addition to AIR/ Doordarshan, if they are of the opinion that such a course is called for in the circumstances. 207. For the above reasons, the appeals, writ petition and applications are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 405 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the object behind interdicting multiple-point tax on declared goods which follows from the mandate contained in clause (a) of section 15 of the Act. According to us, the purpose behind this provision is to minimise the tax burden on declared goods because of the special importance of these goods in inter-State trade and commerce. In the light of the plain meaning of the sections and the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the impugned amendment seeking to impose a levy upon all points of sale is clearly illegal. 12.. For the above reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned provisions contained in section 5(1)(vi) and the Sixth Schedule of the KGST Act as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 1994, in so far as they relate to levy of tax on declared goods iron and steel are illegal, ultra vires of the CST Act and unconstitutional and void. We hereby quash the same. Original petitions are allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 404 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essed turnover of big paper cartons sold for bulk packing also at the rate applicable to liquor. The order of assessment so made was challenged in appeal without success. The matter was then taken up before the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence these tax revision cases. 2.. Identical issue came up before a Bench of this Court in Seven Seas Distillery (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1991 82 STC 71. The Bench took the view that the article sold was bottled liquor packed in cardboard cartons. The cardboard cartons were part of the goods sold. In that view they are exigible to tax at the rate applicable to liquor. This decision binds us. No argument has been advanced questioning the correctness of the decision rendered by this Court in the above case. We do not find any ground to doubt the correctness of the decision either. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in these tax revision cases. They are dismissed summarily at the admission stage. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 403 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of humidifiers used by textile mills to maintain humidity for the purpose of increasing the strength of yarn. It came to the conclusion that humidifiers was machinery used in the manufacture of cloth and would fall under entry 115 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and not under entry 20 which deals with electrical goods. From the above discussion, it follows that in the instant case merely because the word electrical is prefixed to oven to describe the nature of goods, it will not be taxable under entry 38(iv) as admittedly turnover relates to electrical ovens which were meant or adapted for use as accessory to the biscuit baking plant/ machinery and not as an independent item. Therefore, the turnover in question is taxable under entry 83 but not under entry 38(iv). In this view of the matter, we confirm the judgment of the Tribunal but for different reasons. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 402 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es as per the terms of the notification. 34.. For all the reasons stated above and subject to the findings recorded in paras 10, 11, 12, 26 to 28 and 32 we have no hesitation in holding that the various provisions contained in section 3-B of the Act are perfectly valid and they are not liable to be struck down and the same are declared as valid. The order of the learned single Judge stands modified accordingly. The writ appeals and writ petitions are dismissed subject to the findings recorded in paras 10, 11, 12, 26 to 28, 32 and 33 above. No costs. 35.. Such of those appellants and writ petitioners, who have not preferred appeals against the assessment orders and also not filed objections to the notice, are granted thirty (30) days time from today to prefer appeals and objections, as the case may be. In such event, the appeals and objections shall be decided, without going into the question of limitation and in accordance with law. Writ appeals and writ petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (2) TMI 401 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts of the present case. We have also carefully perused the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kher Stone Crusher v. General Manager District Industries Centre 1990 79 STC 149 FB and the Rajasthan High Court in C.T.O. v. Bhonri Lal Jain 1994 94 STC 118 where it has been held that crushing of boulders to obtain stones of smaller size called as gitti amounts to manufacture. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt and Sons 1992 84 STC 497, Pio Food Packer s 1980 46 STC 63, Chowgule and Co. 1981 47 STC 124 and Sterling Foods 1986 63 STC 239, and for the reasons set out above, we find it difficult to agree with the opinion of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Rajasthan High Court. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (2) TMI 400 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed as jute twine on the face of the fact that item 25 covers only jute twine . The position might have been different if the expression appearing in the entry were twine without the qualifying word jute preceding it. In that event, it might have been possible for the assessee to contend that all twines, whether made of jute, aloe or any other fibre, would be covered by the above entry. It is a well-known fact that twines are made of very many products, e.g., jute, cotton, plastic, aloe. These twines are known as cotton twines, plastic twines, jute twines, aloe twines, etc. Entry 25 of Part I of Schedule C does not cover all such twines. It is restricted only to jute twine , i.e., twine made of jute. Aloe twine, therefore, would not fall under the said entry. 9.. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
........
|
