|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 486 Records
-
2003 (4) TMI 551 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that will cover the tax required to be paid under the Act also. In such a situation the proper course for the authority is to adjust the amount of tax demanded under the Act from the tax paid under the Finance Act. Technicality should not stand in the way of doing justice. After adjustment nothing more is required to be paid by the petitioner so far the entry tax for the relevant years is concerned. If there is no other dues against the petitioner then the sales tax authority cannot refuse to grant clearance certificate to the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. The decision by the authority in terms of our direction regarding adjustment is to be taken within ten days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. After the production of the clearance certificate the concerned authority will consider the question of grant of licence immediately. 9.. With the aforesaid direction, the writ application stands disposed of. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 550 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essional rate of tax. The circular has only done away with the necessity of discharging the burden placed upon the assessee under the notification. 8.. Before parting with this case, there is one additional circumstance in favour of the assessee. My attention was invited towards the order of the Tribunal passed in respect of assessment year 1980-81 in the case of the assessee and to another order of the Tribunal passed in Second Appeals Nos. 608, 611 and 609 of 1988 for the assessment years 1982-83, 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. Further, attention was invited to paragraph 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit and it was contended that under the same facts and circumstances the Tribunal accepted the case of the dealer-opposite party for the previous assessment years as well for the subsequent assessment years against the department has not raised any grievance. 9.. In view of the above discussion, the revisions have no force and they are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 549 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion is not to be exercised in such matters. 17.. A division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in National Winder v. Union of India (1993) 64 ELT 388, declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction as no final adjudication was made by the Additional Collector, only show cause notices were issued and reply was filed by petitioner, it was held that Additional Collector has to consider the reply and examine the legal position and may decide to drop the notices. It will not be appropriate for this Court to stall the proceedings which are maintainable under the Central Excise Act. The Additional Collector was directed to decide the issue on merits in accordance with law. 18.. Thus, in my opinion as no final order has been passed and petitioner has submitted the representation against the proposed order, no interference is called for in the writ petition. Writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently M.W.P. No. 186 of 2003 is also dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 548 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 23(3) of the K.G.S.T. Act, if the tax is paid along with the returns before August 31, 2003. However, if tax is not paid before August 31, 2003 then waiver of penal interest will not be applicable to the defaulters and tax and interest will be recovered from them in accordance with law. Issue photocopy today itself. 1.. Order on C.M.P. No. 12914 of 2001 in O.P. No. 30028 of 2000 dismissed. 2.. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 54388 and 48465 of 2000 in O.P. No. 28737 of 2000 dismissed. 3.. Order on C.M.P. No. 27388 of 2001 in O.P. No. 17188 of 2001-U dismissed. 4.. Order on C.M.P. No. 35777 of 2001 in O.P. No. 21977 of 2001-N dismissed. 5.. Order on C.M.P. No. 24490 of 2002 in O.P. No. 14490 of 2002-Y dismissed. 6.. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 40283 and 30318 of 2002 in O.P. No. 23688 of 2002 dismissed. 7.. Order on C.M.P. No. 50291 of 2002 in O.P. No. 29691 of 2001-I dismissed. 8.. Order on C.M.P. No. 63796 of 2002 in O.P. No. 37796 of 2002-Y dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 547 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has sought to justify the action of the department. He has submitted that if any wrong was committed by the department in issuing the recognition certificate to which the assessee was not entitled, the assessee is liable to be penalised for making purchases against the said recognition certificate. I am not at all impressed by this argument. Under clause (l) of section 15-A(1) penalty is attracted only when the assessee has issued or furnished a false certificate or declaration. In the present case it is not the case of the department that the assessee had issued or furnished a false certificate or declaration. The assessee applied for grant of the recognition certificate and it was for the department to reject the said application had he not been entitled for the same. In my view, on the facts of the present case clause (l) of the aforementioned section 15-A(1) is not at all attracted. 5.. There is no force in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 546 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing an assessment on a works contract. Annexure-5 also does not mutilate against the stand adopted by learned counsel for the department. Suffice it to say, while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are certainly not in a position to say that any error apparent on the face of the record has been committed by the authorities under the Act, while completing the assessment. 4.. Learned counsel for the assessee finally submitted that the assessee may be given another opportunity to produce relevant supporting material to show that the whole of the amount as claimed by the assessee was liable to be deducted. There is no case for the assessee that the assessee did not have adequate opportunity, either in the appeal or in the revision before the revisional authority. In this situation, we are not satisfied that the request for further remand is justified. 5.. We see no reason to interfere. We dismiss the writ petition. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 545 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icate in forms XXXI and XXXI-A will not be required to be given by the accountant/ auditor and required information in form XXXI-A may be allowed to be given by the dealer. I find that the impugned judgment was passed reading down section 10A, so that it does not burden the dealers for undergoing audit of their accounts twice, once for the purpose of income-tax and again for the purpose of General Sales Tax Act. 3.. In view of the above decision, it is provided that the report in form XXXI-A shall be furnished by the dealer. So far form XXXI is concerned the audit report/certificate given by accountant shall be suffice. The concerned Sales Tax Department may take steps for modification of the form. 4.. The review petition stands allowed to be extent as stated above. 5.. I have heard Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.K. Goswami learned senior counsel for the intervener, respondent No. 3 and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel. Review petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 544 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th himself the excess tax collected from the buyer. It is also important to note that though there is no provision for levy of interest under the CST Act for belated payment of tax until amendment to section 9 by inserting section 9(2B) by Finance Act, 2000, there is specific provision for penalty under section 10(f) of the CST Act for collection of any amount by way of tax in contravention of the provisions of section 9A of the CST Act. 6.. Therefore what is left by the CST Act to be taken over by the local sales tax law is only the procedure in regard to assessment, collection of tax and enforcement of payment of tax, which takes in the scheme for forfeiture of excess tax collected and for reimbursement of the same to the buyers from whom it is collected. We feel the scope of section 46A is consistent with the provisions of the CST Act and action taken under the said provision cannot be questioned for want of jurisdiction. T.R.C. is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 543 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... basis, this Court sees no good ground to permit the writ petitioner-assessee to reopen the assessment made on the basis of the aforesaid question now raised. 7.. In view of the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The entitlement of the writ petitioner to the adjustment of the tax deducted at source on the basis of the tax deduction certificates as well the entitlement of the writ petitioner for exclusion of the turnover in respect of the goods on which tax under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as the Assam General Sales Tax Act have been paid, will be re-examined by the assessing officer. Such re-examination will be made strictly on the basis of the materials already brought on record by the writ petitioner-assessee in course of the assessment proceedings and thereafter, the order of assessment dated June 26, 1998 will be modified, if required, in the light of such findings as may be arrived at. Writ petition allowed in part.
-
2003 (4) TMI 542 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1 has imported one C.T. Scanner instead of MRI system through WIPRO G.E. Medical System Limited who is respondent No. 5 in this application. Moreover, in this case no final order has been passed by the respondents-authority and, as such, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated September 27, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2 herein. 21.. In view of the reasons assigned above in W.P. No. 1949 of 2002, the petitioner herein are also entitled to the selfsame relief. Thus, I quash the notice to show cause dated September 27, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2 and direct the respondents not to demand any tax under the West Bengal State Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2001 on the aforesaid C.T. scanner as the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of rule 5A(2)(c) of the Rules. This writ application is thus disposed of with the above direction. 22.. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 23.. The applications are thus disposed of. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 541 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in-charge of the affairs of the petitioner was ill, then somebody else should have pursued the matter. 5.. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration two grounds stated on behalf of the petitioner which have not been disbelieved by the revisional authority, we are of the view that the revisional authority should not have rejected the revision application on the ground of delay specially when law does not prescribe any period of limitation. The explanation given by the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. The illness of the employee of the petitioner who was looking after the case appears to be serious one as it was a case of kidney transplantation. Thus, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, as contained in annexure 1, is quashed and the matter is remitted to the revisional authority to consider it afresh on merit in accordance with law. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Writ application allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 540 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In the end Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax submitted that the order of attachment be directed to remain continue. On this question Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners be permitted to continue with their business activities and to render services to their customers so that they may fulfil all their obligations and assurances towards them. 9.. After due consideration of the submissions, it is directed that the attachment with regard to the properties of the petitioners shall continue and the petitioners are permitted to continue with their business activities and also to render services to their customers. 10.. With the aforesaid consent directions, this petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy on payment of usual charges. Petitions disposed of accordingly. Reported in 2003 132 STC 461 (MP) Speed Automobiles Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes .-Ed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 539 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or furnishing monthly statement in the prescribed form. A procedural provision cannot override the intention of a statutory notification in terms of section 12-A of the Act. After all exemption is granted in the light of the difficulties faced by the traders in the field. In the light of the object of the notification and provisions of the Act the intention cannot but to give exemption from April 1, 2001. If this interpretation is possible then it is unnecessary for me to consider the argument on constitutional validity raised by the petitioners. 11.. In the result, these petitions are partly allowed. A declaration is granted that the notification under section 12-A has the effect of exempting levy of tax from April 1, 2001. The other question raised in these petitions are left open. Liberty is reserved to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law in the matter of refund of tax already made over by them for this period. No costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 538 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tivity of supply of books, pamphlets, etc., to devotees on nominal charges to meet the cost cannot be treated as incidental to the business, exigible to tax under the Act. In other words, the Supreme Court held that unless the main activity is carrying on some business the incidental activity cannot be subjected to tax. This is not the position in the present case where the activity of the bank is carrying on banking business which includes sale of pledged securities. 19.. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that there is no infirmity in the legislation authorising levy of tax on pledged articles like gold ornaments when sold by petitioners in the course of realisation of loan amounts and interest thereon. There is no merit in this writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4762 of 2002 in W.A. No. 1841 of 2002 dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 537 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ore, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has thought fit to levy tax at various rates and the petitioners herein cannot contend that the levy of tax at 20 per cent is exorbitant or not in accordance with law. From the abovesaid discussion, it is clear that Serial No. 8 of Part G of the First Schedule in Act 18 of 2002 and Serial No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule in Act 22 of 2002 are validly introduced in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the result, Original Petitions Nos. 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 822, 902, 930, 931, 942, 958, 959, 969, 970, 996, 1006, 1007, 1080, 1081, 1103, 1115 of 2002 and 115 of 2003 are dismissed. As all the Original Petitions are dismissed, the Original Miscellaneous Petitions do not survive. 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 30th day of April, 2003. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 536 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot assume jurisdiction in respect thereof. Unless the Tribunal can assume jurisdiction under section 5, section 14 cannot have any application. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be ousted. The ratio decided in L. Chandra Kumars case 1997 105 STC 618 (SC) (1997) 3 SCC 261 can also, therefore, not be attracted. 20.. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The order dated July 24, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8995 (W) of 2002, appealed against is hereby set aside. Let the writ petition be remanded for decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court in accordance with law on merit. We are not inclined to enter into the merits of the case since while dismissing the writ petition the merit was not gone into. There will be no order as to costs. Learned Counsel for the respondents prays for stay of operation of this judgment. Let there be a stay of operation of this judgment for a period of three weeks. R.N. SINHA, J.-I agree. Writ appeal allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 535 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... -association that they had imported wattle extract on behalf of its members and apportioned the same to its members in accordance with their requirements. In the absence of such proof, as rightly contended by the Revenue, the transaction will not fall under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take the said provision to its advantage. The decision of this Special Tribunal stated supra, as well as the order of the High Court in the writ petition filed against the order of this Special Tribunal stated supra, are against the prayer of the petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, these two original petitions are liable to be dismissed. In the result, O.P. Nos. 197 and 198 of 2002 are dismissed. 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 4th day of April, 2003. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 534 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eficial enjoyment. 45.. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Revenue is not convincing. Sale as defined in section 2(38) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act means sale of goods defined in section 2(20) of the Act. By creating a fictional definition of plant and machinery imbedded to earth makes the whole factory. The whole factory having been given on lease, for taxing purposes, it is sought to be fragmented. Thus, sought to be subjected to taxation as goods. This cannot be treated to be proper exercise of jurisdiction by the taxation authorities. Thus, following the law laid down in Duncans Industries Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 355 (1999) 9 JT 421 (2000) 1 SCC 633, I am of the definite opinion that if the Tax Board has come to the conclusion that plant and machinery has to be treated as immovable property, no different view can be taken while exercising revisional jurisdiction. That being the position, the revision petitions are meritless and hence, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 533 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and that a dealer who purchases chassis after paying the tax and builds body on the chassis it becomes a motor vehicle which is liable to tax as a motor vehicle notwithstanding the fact that the chassis and the body had suffered tax separately. In fact in the provisions of the present entry 94 of the First Schedule dealing with motor vehicles an explanation was added as per which where a tax has been levied on chassis of motor vehicle or on body built on such chassis within the State, the tax payable on the motor vehicle produced out of such chassis shall be reduced by the amount of tax paid on such chassis or body built on such chassis. However, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of this since the said explanation was inserted long after the transaction with which we are concerned. For all these reasons we do not find any merit in this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Reported as Noor Metals v. State of Kerala 2004 136 STC 417.
-
2003 (4) TMI 532 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... facts and admitted mitigating circumstances as stated above, we hold that imposition of an amount of token penalty of Rs. 1,000 would meet the ends of justice in this case. 14.. In the ultimate analysis, we sustain the decision dated July 1, 1999 of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board-affirming the decision of the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2-to the effect that the sale of Rs. 1,47,19,885 by the petitioner is not an export sale to be entitled for deduction of the same from the gross turnover and that the said sale is exigible to tax at the rate fixed. We also affirm the decision of imposition of penalty on the petitioner but modify the amount of penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,000 only. Both the points thus having been decided against the petitioner, the application fails-subject only to the modification of the amount of penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,000. Parties do bear their respective costs. 15.. A. DEB (Technical Member).-I agree.
........
|
