|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 432 Records
-
1996 (3) TMI 516 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... enalty a sum not exceeding double the amount of tax had been levied if he had not given the declaration . As held above, the petitioner was not required to furnish declaration forms ST 18-A. It cannot, therefore, be said that he made declaration under the provisions of the Act. By furnishing the forms ST 18-A, the liability of the petitioner was not attracted. In other words, by not furnishing declaration forms ST 18-A, no additional tax was leviable. As such no penalty could be imposed under section 16(1)(k) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussions, penalty notice (annexure 3) and the order (annexure 5) imposing penalty of Rs. 1,09,848 under section 16(1)(k) of the Act have to be quashed. 10.. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The notice dated October 7, 1993 (annexure 3) and order dated October 19, 1993 (annexure 5) imposing penalty of Rs. 1,09,848 under section 16(1)(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 are quashed. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 515 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nctly leaving no confusion to be confounded as a result. There is no dispute that this Finance Act No. 18 of 1987 came into effect from July 1, 1987 and would not have any application to the proceedings before us except and by way of aid to the understanding of the entries Nos. 94 and 95 as they stood at the time for function and interplay. 7. Thus it would be seen that the article sold was veneer and would be governed by entry No. 94 consequently being subject to tax at 4 per cent as the situation governed with reference to the assessment years in question. For the above reasons the two revision cases succeed. Consequently all the orders in these two revision cases stand quashed and set aside and the trial authority is directed to proceed with the question of levy of sales tax by application of entry No. 94 governing the situation and pass orders accordingly with regard to the amount of tax to be paid by the assessee on the above basis. Order accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 514 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... these defects at all. We have already noticed that in respect of the assessee for the immediate preceding year, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had considered the defects more or less of similar nature and held that they are only of general nature, which cannot be a ground for rejection of the accounts. It appears that the department did not take up the matter in revision before this Court and therefore the said order has become final also. 12.. In view of what we have stated here above, we are of the view that the authorities and the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the return and accounts and sustaining the same. We accordingly quash and set aside the order of the assessing authority, as modified by the first appellate authority and sustained by the second appellate authority and direct the assessing authority to accept the return and accounts of the assessee and complete the assessment accordingly. This tax revision case is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 513 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e is yet another aspect of the matter. It is clear from the said receipts (annexure R/1 to annexure R/3) and the statement (annexure R/4) that the petitioner has concealed these material facts in his writ petition. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 8.. It is well-settled law that in contractual matters, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contracts which determine rights and obligations of the parties inter se. Reference of Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority AIR 1980 SC 738 and Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh AIR 1989 SC 1076 may be made. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, in breach of natural justice and not fairly, warranting interference in the said contractual matters. Thus the writ petition has no force. 9.. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 512 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... That is not the question and as stated above the question is of the liability at the inception as well as justification on the basis of the material on record, in our judgment, does not justify rejection of accounts and resort to the process of estimation since the question was not taken up satisfactorily and since we thought that it is erroneously decided, supported by the reasons recorded hereinbefore we quash and set aside all the orders, namely, annexure C, dated March 22, 1988 of the Additional Sales Tax Officer II, Trivandrum, annexure D dated November 10, 1988 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, annexure E, dated May 30, 1989 of the Additional Sales Tax Officer III-passed in pursuance of annexure D, and annexure F dated March 11, 1991 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum and consequently direct the assessing authority to accept the accounts as submitted and proceed with the assessment accordingly. T.R.C. is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 511 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he tax leviable under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 4.. To say the least, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement (Central) on March 19, 1996 is perverse. It reflects a lack of basic knowledge of law and his public duty. If free trade and commerce is suppressed by putting spokes and hurdles, not warranted by law, it is the public economy that will suffer. Detention at check-posts is not a method for collection of tax or money. Detention can be made only to prevent evasion of tax. It is not to be resorted to for irrelevant reasons. Since, the reason given by the Assistant Commissioner has no support in law for detention, his order is also set aside. The consignment shall be released forthwith. 5.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 22nd day of March, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 510 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 14.. Lastly the learned counsel contended which was also strenuously submitted before the Tribunal that an equal addition of Rs. 37,62,175.75 plus 10 per cent gross profit was highly arbitrary and quite unwarranted in the circumstances of the case. This argument will have to be treated in the nature of a last straw on the camel s back. The facts have been found, the mode of evading tax has been the most uncommon in regard to the sales tax administration of law. Apart there from the fact finding authorities could not be said to be in error in regard thereto. At any rate we shudder to substitute our judgment otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case. Although T.R.C. No. 27 of 1993 relates to a different assessment year from T.R.C. No. 30 of 1993 the question has identical character and our decision shall cover the fate of T.R.C. No. 30 of 1993. For the above reasons revision cases stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 509 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng production has already been decided by the State Government which is final in view of the scheme dated September 30, 1982 (annexure 1 to the supplementary-affidavit), we do not consider it necessary to go into the question as to what will be the date of starting production in the light of the rules dated September 30, 1982. 11.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated May 3, 1991 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) rejecting the review application and the initial order dated September 13, 1989 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the application made under section 4-A of the Act are quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to grant the eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act to the petitioner in accordance with law taking October 2, 1982 as the date of starting production within ten days from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the respondent. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 508 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... d the final products made therefrom and the Credit can be utilised for the payment of any of the final products in or in relation to the manufacture of which the inputs are intended to be used. Such an intention was there in the present case as common inputs were used for the Chassis falling under Tariff sub-headings 8706.20 and 8706.40 which were exported in bond as well as the Motor Vehicles falling under Tariff Headings other than the above-mentioned two sub-headings. In the circumstances, the utilisation of Credit by the appellants was in order and I answer the question posed before me accordingly and hold that the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned Order against the appellants is not sustainable. 56. emsp The papers may now be placed before the original Bench that heard this appeal for passing the final order on the matter. MAJORITY OPINION Demand of Duty confirmed in the impugned order against the appellants is not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 507 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1986 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Malwa Trading Co. Nagda) and M.C.C. No. 286 of 1986 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Malwa Trading Co. Nagda). 10.. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal had to be clear as to which provision (penalty on late submission of return or on non-submission of returns) was applicable. Manifestly, one provision is destructive of the other. There cannot be invocation of both the provisions simultaneously. It is here that the error has crept in. 11.. In the result, we answer the question No. 1 in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of this answer to the question No. 1, the question No. 2 does not arise. 12.. The reference is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms but without any order as to costs. In view of our answer on technical ground, Tribunal shall now decide the case afresh. Counsel s fee is allowed at Rs. 750 for each side, if certified. 13.. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1996 (3) TMI 506 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cessary declaration in form No. 7 along with the sale note is also issued to the consignor, Messrs. Meghdev Enterprises, Wadhwan city, Surendra Nagar, Gujarat. 9.. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we have no hesitation that the material on record shows no iota of evidence with regard to the statutorily required finding under section 29A(4) of the KGST Act, 1963 that there is any attempt to evade the tax. In our judgment the material shows innocence floating on the surface. For the above reasons revision case succeeds. All the three orders get quashed and set aside and consequently the amount of security deposit of Rs. 39,230 realised from the petitioner-assessee as per receipt No. 177394 dated July 23, 1989 is ordered to be refunded forthwith on or before May 31, 1996 with a further direction that on failure of compliance the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from June 1, 1996 till the date of payment. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 505 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es information so as to entitle the Assessing Authority to reopen the assessment within the meaning of section 31 stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1979 119 ITR 996 and two division Bench judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aggarwal Textile Here italicised. Mills 1985 154 ITR 234 and in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Smt. Savitri Devi 1983 144 ITR 345. 5.. In view of the settled law on the subject the department itself has issued circular No. 2641/S.T. 1 dated August 24, 1994 pointing out to the Assessing Authorities not to reassess their earlier orders on the basis of audit objection which is neither desirable nor required under any provision of the Act. 6.. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (3) TMI 504 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... and the quantity of the same. The fact of seizure on May 3, 1995 is also not in dispute. An attempt has, however, been made by the applicant to assert that the truck carrying the articles did not reach the check-post on May 1, 1995 but on May 3, 1995. This assertion, as already pointed out, has been found unworthy of credence. Thus, the presence of witness in this case would have been reduced to a meaningless ritual. 15.. In the circumstances, the application fails and is dismissed accordingly. In case the sum of Rs. 84,000 has been deposited in cash and bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 in favour of respondent No. 1 has been furnished by the applicant as security in terms of our interim order of May 17, 1995 for the release of the seized goods, the same will abide the ultimate result of the penalty proceedings as already mentioned therein. There will be no order for cost. L.N. RAY, J. (Chairman).-I agree. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 503 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... . In the result, the application is allowed. The demands raised by respondent No. 2 under section 14(3) and under section 17(1) in form VIII issued on December 30, 1994 and in form X issued on December 30, 1994 are quashed. Fresh proceedings under section 14(3) and under section 17(1) of the Act of 1972 shall be initiated against the applicant and while initiating proceeding under section 14(3) and under section 17(1) of the Act of 1972 the respondents shall ignore the statement of evasion of tax prepared by respondent No. 2 on December 23, 1994 and also the proceedings recorded on December 30, 1994. We would further direct that the above-mentioned proceedings under the Act of 1972 shall be initiated by an officer other than respondent No. 2 and such proceedings shall be disposed of according to law within a period of three months from date. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).--I agree. Application allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 502 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 4.. It is submitted that the time for preferring the appeal has expired, as the petitioner has approached this Court. We do not consider it necessary to go into that question. However, as the orders challenged are appealable, we direct that if the petitioner files the appeals against the aforesaid assessment orders, within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be heard and decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on merits and in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation. 5.. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the order dated September 25, 1995 passed in the W.M.Ps. referred to above, does not survive. It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. The C.M.Ps. are also disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (3) TMI 501 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... re, which described the item as Corial Lacquer FM and again as nitrocellulose lacquer for leather finishing and then it is stated that the item imparts to the leather surface a medium to high gloss, etc. Annexure F dated November 2, 1995 obtained from the Central Leather Research Institute merely shows that the item is clearly being used in leather industry as a top coat finishing material. 11.. From the above it is clear that in the trade parlance the disputed item is known as lacquer although it is used as a chemical in the leather industry. Since the expression, lacquer has been specified in entry No. 51 of Part A of Schedule IV, regardless of end-use, goods which will come under that description will be covered by entry No. 51. In that view of the matter, we hold that the seizures dated September 23, 1995 and September 25, 1995 were validly made. The application is, therefore, dismissed without any order for costs. The interim order stands vacated. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 500 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s, then he will proceed to make a fresh assessment for the period of 4th quarter ending March 31, 1982, according to law. Respondent No. 3 will give the applicants an opportunity of being heard at every stage of his coming to the findings on the points mentioned above. Respondent No. 3 is directed to complete all the stages and the fresh assessment, if any, within a total period of 6 months from now. The amount of security of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the applicants in terms of interim orders of this Tribunal dated April 25, 1995 and June 7, 1995 will abide the ultimate result of fresh assessment, if any, within the aforesaid period. If, however, the fresh assessment is not completed within a period of 6 months from now, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will refund the sum of Rs. 25,000 to the applicants within a period of 3 months from expiry of the period of 6 months from now. The application is thus disposed of without any order for costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (3) TMI 499 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rector-General, Supply and Disposal which may be claimed subsequently through respective invoices. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of this condition, the supplier (assessee) deposited the inspection charges and the same were paid by the purchaser after the sale. This leaves no manner of doubt that as per terms of contract, the inspection charges were to be ultimately paid by the purchaser and not by the seller (assessee). They did not form part of the sale price. Before and after the inspection, the sale price remained the same. They were not rightly included in the taxable turnover. The said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents duly support him. 5.. No question of law is involved in the concurrent findings that solvent cement and P.V.C. of Rs. 65,975 were destroyed/swept away in the flood and they were not sold. It does not call for any interference. 6.. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 498 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ditional Government Pleader (Taxes), submits that even the residential address given by the petitioner is not genuine and in that address somebody else is found living. She also reiterated the reasons given in the impugned order for sustaining the cancellation of registration. After having heard the rival contentions, the conclusion that there is violation of principles of natural justice is inevitable, local enquiry has been made behind the back of the petitioner, the building owner has been examined without reference to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated June 12, 1995, is set aside. It is open to the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 5th day of March, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 497 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, such an order is a prerequisite or a pre-condition for the 3rd respondent to invoke section 9 and pass an order. We also find that this Court as well as the Madras High Court while dealing with identical provisions in the Sales Tax Act, took a similar view. Applying with the same ratio, we hold that the orders of the 3rd respondent dated November 5, 1986, marked at exhibits L1 to L9 are without jurisdiction. Consequently, it will follow that the orders of the 2nd respondent dated October 27, 1987 at exhibits M1 to M9 are also without jurisdiction and accordingly all the abovesaid orders are quashed and set aside. In view of the conclusions arrived above, we find it unnecessary to consider the second argument/submission of the counsel for the petitioners. Consequently the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
