|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 524 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 833 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... business of the company or may be incharge of but not in over-all-charge or may be in charge of only some part of business. 5. In short the partner of a firm is liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was in charge of and was responsible to, the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned. 6. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in KPG Nayar v. Jindal Menthol Ltd. - 2000 (6) 578 and Anil Hoda v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. - JT 1999 SCC 223. Examined in the light of these decisions and the law enunciated, we find no case as such has been made out for proceeding against the appellant. 7. The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside so far as appellant before us is concerned. Proceedings in the criminal case are quashed in so far as appellant before us is concerned.
-
2002 (8) TMI 832 - SUPREME COURT
Detention pursuant to an order passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Held that:- According to the detaining authority the prime mover for the smuggling activity was the proprietor of M/s. B.D. Denim. The appellant at the worst was a pawn in the hands of another. The likelihood of the appellant indulging in smuggling activities by the appellant was in any case effectively foreclosed by the retention of his passport by the customs department. The detaining authority noted that the appellant's passport was with the customs department and yet he said " but you are likely to travel clandestinely for the purpose of smuggling". Now none of the instances of smuggling by the appellant as stated in the impugned detention order describe the appellant as having travelled without a passport for the purpose of smuggling. The conclusion that despite the absence of his passport the appellant could or would be able to continue his activities is based on no material but was a piece of pure speculation on the part of the detaining authority. These findings are sufficient to invalidate the impugned detention order and it is not necessary to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside.
-
2002 (8) TMI 831 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d notice as contemplated under rule 2(1)(h) must be for a period before April 1, 2001 in praesenti. The demand notices in the case of deferment after April 1, 2001 are for the date subsequent thereto. In my opinion the word service of demand notice, the demand made by the notice in praesenti not in futuro to a deferred date after April 1, 2001 in such a case there is no demand notice for a debt prior to April 1, 2001. Thus, in my opinion the interpretation put by the respondents is appropriate none of the rules is unambiguous and when strict interpretation is made it is clear that the interpretation put by the petitioner cannot be adopted as there is no ambiguity there is no need to supply casus omissus. Interpretation is clear and goes against petitioner on considering the Deferment Rules, 1994, Saral Kar Samadhan Yojna 2002 and Rules framed under Scheme. 35.. Resultantly, I find no merit in the writ petitions. They are dismissed. Costs on parties. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 830 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... d of the circumstances as above and finding of huge discrepancies as given in the report, the question of bona fide or not of the suspicion has to be considered. We are required to see if there is some material at least in the possession of the officer to justify his reason to suspect. It is not the sufficiency of the material that has to be investigated by us. It is also not for us in such a case to substitute our own view for the views held by the officer. We find no reason to hold that there is no material on the basis of which any reason to suspect for the purpose of seizure could be entertained. 11.. In view of our finding as above, the issues framed are decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. We therefore hold that the impugned seizure made cannot but be sustained. As such the application is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs. 12.. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 829 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... une 15, 1998 of the Assistant Commissioner. But we cannot but mention that we are not in agreement with the method of reasoning adopted by the revisional authority that is, the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board as well as its conclusion that the dealer is liable to pay tax on sale of liquor, even if the sale took place after April 10, 1994, arising not of liquor held in stock as on April 1, 1994 - since extraneous and irrelevant matters - not connected with the instant case - have been taken into consideration by it. Instead of remanding the matter back to the Board for a decision afresh upon the materials on record, we like to strike down the aforesaid finding which we do so hereby. Only because we hold that the ultimate order dismissing the revision petition is an appropriate order which does not require interference, we uphold only that part of the order of the Board. We have already held that we do not find any fault with the order of respondent
-
2002 (8) TMI 828 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ection 47. The form No. 33, therefore, is not a demand notice but it is an information which is also given to the Collector for recovery of the amount so modified in appeal or revision. 13.. We therefore, hold that the interest according to law is to be levied not from the date of the revisional or appellate order but from the date of the expiry mentioned in the notice of demand issued against the dealer under section 47 of the Act inasmuch as, interest being the compensation for the delay in payment of tax and it must accrue from the date the sales tax falls due for payment. Therefore, the provision of section 32(1) of the Act, 1994 is not in conflict with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32. The form No. 30 is never superseded in the event of issuing the form No. 33 under the provisions of rule 190 of the Rules, 1995. 14.. We, therefore, find no merits in the instant application and it is liable to be dismissed. 15.. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 827 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... to the market value was held to be illegal and such consignor was subjected to penalty. On going through the facts of the case, we find that the section 29-A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 authorises the check-post officer to question the value of the goods carried by the transporter with reference to the market value which is not so under the provisions of the Act, 1994. No such power is vested with such officers. 19.. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of law and Rules we hold that the instant application should be allowed. The seizure is thus held to be illegal and invalid. 20.. The application, therefore, is allowed without costs. The impugned seizure dated January 22, 2000 and the order dated February 17, 2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the notice dated February 18, 2000 are declared to be illegal and invalid and accordingly set aside. 21.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. Application allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 826 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l was not justified in disturbing the order of the assessing authority. 11.. The respondent-company has raised other contentions with respect to the ex parte order without giving opportunity of being heard. It is also submitted that the C.T.O., Anti Evasion, had no jurisdiction in the matter of dispute with respect to the rate of tax. In our view, both the contentions are not sustainable. It appears from the record that in spite of the opportunity given, the respondentcompany did not put in appearance before the assessing authority. Be that as it may, the matter has been examined at length by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal on merits of the case. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The contention is rejected. 12.. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. The judgment of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal dated July 24, 1998 is set aside. The order of the assessing authority dated June 18, 1997 is restored. No order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 825 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... The whole procedure adopted by the respondent for cancellation of registration certificate in our opinion is perfunctory. It is bias and motivated. 15.. Relying on the settled principles of law and for the reasons discussed above we are of opinion that the impugned order cancelling the registration certificate passed by the concerned authority is neither justified nor proper. The order, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 16.. We accordingly set aside the order dated July 10, 2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Posta Bazar Charge and direct the respondent to restore the registration certificate with effect from July 10, 2002. 17.. The application, thus, is allowed without costs. The way-bill pending for consideration may be disposed of according to the rules. 18.. The learned State Representative prays for stay of the operation of the order. Serious objection was made on behalf of the petitioner. The prayer for stay is refused. Application allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 824 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f tax on the turnover relevant to sketch pens was not taxable, the Tribunal has without adverting to that aspect merely set aside the penalty, and has not said anything at all about the taxability of the item. 4.. Learned Special Government Advocate (Taxes) fairly states that the clarification in fact, has been issued by the Commissioner stating that pens include sketch pens . The exemption granted to pens therefore, is available in respect of sketch pens as well. 5.. It is well-settled that clarifications and orders issued by the Commissioner in terms of the power vested in him under the statute are binding on his subordinates, especially where the orders or instructions are favourable to the assessee. 6.. The impugned order of the Tribunal which upheld the assessment with regard to the turnover relating to sketch pens therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 32064 of 2002 is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 823 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to in item 23 (now 24) of the Schedule to the Entry Tax Act introduced by SRO No. 1096 of 1999 with effect from January 1, 2000 does not cover the kind of equipments referred to in the original petitions. Therefore, exhibit P2 notice in both the original petitions are liable to be quashed and I do so. I make it clear that this judgment should not be understood as saying that all items used in a hospital cannot be treated as furniture. The ordinary furniture used in a hospital such as table, chair, etc., even though of a special type may be categorised as furniture, but certainly not the surgical tables referred to above the value of which is essentially attributable to the gadgets and equipments attached to it. The original petitions are therefore allowed declaring that the surgical tables above referred do not attract entry tax and consequently the impugned proceedings are quashed. 6.. Order on C.M.P. No. 6587 of 2002 in O.P. No. 3687 of 2002 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 822 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, as also the restrictions and conditions including the ceiling on rates, subject to which States may levy tax on such declared goods. The State, by subjecting parts and accessories of motor vehicles, at a higher rate, cannot impose such higher rate on goods which are declared goods. The end use of the declared goods will not have the effect of taking away the effect of the declaration made by Parliament regarding those goods. 14.. The fact that the specification for the tube or pipe supplied was given by the buyer would also make no difference, as what is supplied in fact, is the steel tube conforming to the specification given by the buyer and nothing more. The sales tax levied on steel tubes supplied by the petitioner, though put to use by the buyer as exhaust pipes, cannot exceed four per cent. 15.. The view taken by the Tribunal therefore, cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 821 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng Counsel. The proviso to section 25 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act states Provided that no notification having the effect of increasing the liability to tax of a dealer shall be issued with retrospective effect under this section . Even apart from this proviso, the general legal principle is that ordinarily a delegated legislation cannot be made with retrospective unless the statute permits. A notification fixing the rate of tax is a piece of delegated legislation and hence it cannot be with retrospective effect unless there is a clear provision in the statute in this connection. 4.. The above observations are applicable in the present case. Therefore it is clear that for the assessment year 1990-91 the new rate of tax could be fixed only after October 23, 1990 and interest also could not be imposed before that period as such the order dated April 28, 2000 is illegal and set aside and the questions of law are dealt with and the revision is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 820 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sons other than what were contemplated in the notice shall tantamount taking steps in derogation of rule of audi alteram partem , i.e., indicative of that the opposite party/dealer has not been provided opportunity of hearing. It is therefore, clear that the opposite party/dealer has not been heard before cancellation of his registration certificate both in U.P. as well as in Central. From this point of view I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order dated May 27, 2002 of learned Tribunal. However, the observation of learned Tribunal in respect of cancellation of registration shall not debar the Trade Tax Department to further initiate any legal action for cancellation of registration of opposite party-dealer, to be made in accordance with law if necessary, in future, after issuing proper notice and passing proper order. The questions of law raised by the Commissioner/revenue is dealt with negatively and the revision is rejected accordingly. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 819 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tated above for striking down of enactments are however confined to an Act made by the Legislature. 30.. Thus, as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the above decision, an Act made by the Legislature could be struck down only on two grounds, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or on any other Constitutional provisions. In this case, the petitioners have not placed any material, to hold that the Legislature lacked competence to bring about the impugned amendment or such amendment has affected their fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. Therefore, we reject the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this regard. 31.. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 818 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to challenge the said judgment before the division Bench but the same was declined. This fact is noted in the order dated September 22, 2000. In view of the post judgment development, the amendment was granted whereby a prayer has been made to quash the order of the assessing authority dated September 19, 2000. 33.. Consequently, all the three special appeals being D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 907 of 2000, 938 of 2000 and 933 of 2000 are allowed the judgments of the learned single Judge dated September 18, 2000, September 20, 2000 and September 25, 2000, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3345 of 2000, 3624 of 1999 and 3202 of 1999 respectively are set aside and the impugned notices dated September 1, 2000, August 19, 1999 and March 16, 1998, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Jodhpur, are quashed and set aside. The order of assessment dated September 19, 2000 is also quashed and set aside. Cost easy. Appeals allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 817 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... present case. 4.. As already stated, what the court has to examine is whether it is glazed tile. If it is glazed tiles, then they are liable to be taxed at 20 per cent. Even though the Tribunal referred to some literature, it does not disclose as to what is the literature. The Tribunal is an appellate body. It is the duty of the Tribunal to extract the materials or exhibit the materials in this case. It is not mere subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal. The court should give the reason. We dont know how it differs from the glazed tiles. Further, the Tribunal says that glazeness is not as much as other tiles. 5.. In the above view of the matter, we are not able to support the judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think, the matter requires fresh look at the hands of the Tribunal. Hence, we set aside the order of the Tribunal. We remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. T.R.C. is disposed of as above. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 816 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2, 2000, the presumption was drawn based on conjectures and surmises that the consignment was being taken for evasion of tax and no basis of such finding has even been recorded in the order of the Tribunal. Since the applicant/ revisionist is a registered dealer and is importing the said goods on duly declared form 31 , therefore, asking for security double the amount of tax payable on the estimated value of goods was not justified. Therefore, the order dated July 26, 2002 is legally not sustainable. From this point the questions of law preferred in the revision are dealt with accordingly and the goods in question are directed to be released forthwith without any security. The trade tax revision is allowed. However, this order should not make any effect on any kind of proceeding to be taken by the trade tax authorities. A certified copy of this order may be furnished to learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist within a week on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 815 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rticularly section 5(3)(ii) of the Act, which is as follows Where any dealer, after purchasing any goods by furnishing a declaration as mentioned in the second proviso to clause (i), fails to make use of the same for the purpose for which the declaration was furnished, he shall be liable to pay the tax that would have been payable by him, had the declaration not been furnished, less the tax, if any, paid by him and the same shall be levied and collected as if it is a tax due from him. Here there is no case that the raw materials were not used for the purpose for which they were purchased. The next question is regarding the liability to pay tax. The case of the department is that since there was an exemption notification, there is no liability and hence, the proviso will not apply. We cannot accept this argument. The assessment orders to the above extent are set aside. T.R.Cs. are allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 3055 of 2002 in T.R.C. No. 182 of 2002 dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 814 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x, I find it unnecessary to strike down the said provision. However, the statement made by the learned Advocate-General that the State would not collect sales tax in terms of the power conferred on it under Sl. No. 9-A of Part T of the Second Schedule, in the light of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kothari Products 2000 119 STC 553, so long as the said decision holds field is placed on record. 16.. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, all the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenging the power of the State to levy luxury tax are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, they are rejected. Consequently, the challenges made to the impugned notices are also liable to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected. 17.. In the light of above, these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs. Rule issued is discharged. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
