|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 295 Records
-
1992 (9) TMI 324 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to Madras. The assessee claimed exemption, under section 6(2) with reference to the sale to the abovesaid buyer at Madras. In that context, it was found by a Division Bench of this Court that inter-State movement, from Calcutta to Madras, stood terminated only on the delivery of the goods at Madras to the buyer of the assessee and long before the said termination, the goods have been sold by the assessee to the said buyer. Thus it is not a case where the goods were further transported from Madras to some other places in order to effect deliveries to the buyer of the assessee, as in the present case. Further, in the above case, there was also endorsement on the lorry way-bill in favour of the said buyer, unlike in the present case. 26.. The net result is the order of the Tribunal below is set aside and the abovesaid revised assessment is restored and these three tax revisions are allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 323 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce to the appellant-assessee, the Commissioner has not mentioned the grounds under the second limb of section 5(1) of the Act, is not fatal to the claim of the appellant and would not justify denying it the relief without giving an opportunity to place the material and making further enquiry. The Commissioner did not call upon the appellant to place necessary documents with regard to its claim under the second limb of section 5(1) of the Act and issued direction to the assessing authority to raise a demand after taxing the turnover in question. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner under appeal and direct the Deputy Commissioner to give an opportunity to the appellant to place the relevant material with regard to the fulfilment of the requirements of the second limb of section 5(1) of the Act and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The special appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 322 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, indicative of deferred payment rather than damages for the user of the goods. In a case such as the one maintained by the petitioner stock register was very much important and relevant. Business practice requires to keep relevant records omission to maintain such records cannot operate to the advantage of the assessee and in appropriate cases failure to maintain the same would invite adverse inference. The circumstances cumulatively support the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the whole exercise was a vain attempt to wrap the real transaction which was sale whose consideration was deferred payment. In the circumstance there is nothing wrong when the Tribunal held that the alleged loan is a make-believe arrangement and treated the transaction as sale and brought the same to assessment. The revision is liable to be dismissed. In the result the revision fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstance there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 321 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er relating to places where, admittedly, there are no branch offices of the assessee was considered as the second category. The case of the assessee was that there were hundekars of the assessee to whom the transfer was made. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to support the contention of the assessee and that the purchasers indicated that the R.Rs. were transferred in their names and they took delivery at the railway station from the hundekars , bearing the entire charges of hundekars and transport therefrom. In fact, the finding is that the hundekars acted on behalf of the purchasers but not on behalf of the assessee. On this finding, in our view the Tribunal was justified in not remanding the items of the turnover relating to such sales. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, warranting interference by this Court under revision. These tax revision cases are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 320 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evidence to show that the Ambada oil is an edible oil that for want of evidence supporting the view of the revisional authority the order of the revisional authority could not be sustained and in that view of the matter the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, submits that the revisional authority has held that in common parlance Ambada oil is not an edible oil and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is illegal. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader. What the revisional authority said in his opinion is not based on any material. The Tribunal has, however, referred to the clarification furnished by the Commissioner, Sales Tax and the opinion of the Director of Industries, which overwhelmingly supported that Ambada oil is an edible oil. In these circumstances, there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 319 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dity retains its primary attributes, notwithstanding the minimum manufacturing process or other processing. Keeping these tests in mind, we shall now consider, whether the tamarind dhal and tamarind seed dhal are one and the same commodity. As observed above, the use to which these commodities are put, is not recorded by the Tribunal as no evidence was placed by the parties before it. The commodity, tamarind seed is understood in commercial circles as different and distinct commodity from tamarind seed kernel. With regard to the characteristics, the Tribunal observed that when once the seed was converted into kernel it lost its essential characteristic and value. Therefore, it follows that tamarind seed and tamarind seed dhal are different commodities and both the commodities cannot be treated as one and the same. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order under revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT
Legality and validity of the policy decision of Government of India containing the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority to different Cooperative Group Housing Societies questioned
Held that:- High Court has taken a very reasonable view in holding that the expression "first come first served" appearing in Rule 6(vi) of Nazul Rules relate to the seniority with reference to the date of Registration of Group Housing Societies with the Registrar. The High Court rightly held that there has to be certainty in the seniority with reference to which priority in the matter of allotment is to be given and fixation of such seniority cannot be left to the whims and fancies of any official.
It was not at all necessary to find out which of the Societies were likely to get allotments from DDA and to implead them as parties in the Writ petitions. That apart, no real prejudice was caused to the Societies which were likely to be benefitted by the new criterion. Since the allotments in their favour were made with express condition that such allotments would abide by the decision to be rendered in the Writ Petitions and such allotments were liable to be cancelled on account of the decision to be made in the pending Writ Petitions, the Group Housing Societies likely to be affected by the Judgment in the Writ Petitions could take steps for being impleaded in the proceedings and contest the same if they had so desired. It also appears to us that in any event the new policy decision as contained in the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990 should not have been implemented without making such change in the existing criterion for allotment known to the Group Housing Societies if necessary by way of a public notice so that they might make proper representation to the concerned authorities for consideration of their view-points. Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 317 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imed only in relation to the financial year in which the sales had taken effect but not in relation to the subsequent year in which the goods were returned and the value of the goods was refunded to the purchaser, provided, of course, the other conditions of the rules are satisfied, viz., that the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was made and the claim for deduction on account of such returned goods is preferred within a year from the date of service of the order of assessment of the dealer. For the above reasons, the order of the Tribunal dated May 31, 1985 in T.A. No. 39 of 1981 cannot be sustained it is accordingly set aside. However, it is made clear that this order does not prevent the assessee from making a claim for refund or adjustment in accordance with the Rules. The T.R.C. is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 316 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r consideration. The principles adopted by the Tribunal to treat the product as one other than paper within the meaning of entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Act merely on the basis of the added use of bitumen and hessian, is wholly erroneous in law and opposed to the ratio of decisions of this Court as well as the apex Court, to which reference has already been made by us. 14.. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that hessian paper rolls, manufactured and sold by the respondents-assessees would squarely fall within the description of paper as found described in entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Act and consequently the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it related to the levy of tax at 8 per cent in respect of the turnover in question relating to the sales turnover of hessian paper rolls, shall stand set aside. The revision shall, to that extent, stand allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 315 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibit P1 notification is not in challenge. Even applying exhibit P1 notification for the year 1986-87, the assessing officer held that the compound rubber is not a finished rubber product and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for concession. That matter is now pending in appeal before the Tribunal. Exhibit P1 cannot be interpreted in the light of exhibit P5 notification. It is not contended that exhibit P5 has application to the petitioner for the year 1986-87. If the position is the same before exhibit P5 is issued, no purpose will be served by interpreting exhibit P5 at this stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, and if it is necessary for it to raise the issue relating to the notification in a separate original petition, it can do so after availing the statutory remedy at the appropriate stage. Reserving the right to raise all the issues raised in the original petition, I dismiss the writ petition. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 314 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held by the Sales Tax Tribunal and the authorities below. In view of our abovesaid finding, the question referred to us in S.T. Reference No.10 of 1987 requires to be replied in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as S.T. Reference No. 8 of 1988 is concerned, the question No. 2 referred to us requires to be replied and answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. That takes us to the question No. 1 referred to us in S.T. Reference No. 8 of 1988. A detailed reference made by us to the various aspects of the manufacturing process would go to show that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the case of the assessee was devoid of any evidence on record. In view of this position, we answer and reply this question in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We reply and answer the abovesaid questions accordingly. Answer accordingly. References answered in the negative.
-
1992 (9) TMI 313 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... something which every user of an automobile should necessarily possess. Being so, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the assessee that the jack is a mere iron and steel article and not an accessory to a motor vehicle. The statutory authorities were right in holding that the jack was an accessory falling under entries 138 and 125 respectively of the First Schedule before and after July 1, 1987 liable to tax at 15 per cent. 14.. We therefore allow the tax revision cases in part, holding that the nuts and bolts sold by the assessee were iron and steel articles falling under entries 45 and 99 respectively before and after July 1, 1987 and therefore liable to tax only at 6 per cent. We affirm the finding of the Tribunal that jack was an accessory to a motor vehicle, assessable at 15 per cent. The assessing authority is directed to modify the assessments regarding nuts and bolts in the light of the above. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed partly.
-
1992 (9) TMI 312 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of section 15(d) of the Central Act. The conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard are correct. The approach in remanding the matter to the assessing officer to find out what portion of the goods sold, were purchased from inside the State is also appropriate because the dealer is liable to pay tax in respect of goods of which it was the first purchaser inside the State. Our answer, therefore, to the question is that khesari dal is khesari as provided in serial No. 8 (serial No. 7 at the relevant time) of the notification issued under section 3-B of the Act and is liable to tax on the purchase turnover where the dealer is the first purchaser inside the State. The Tribunal has not considered the goods as cattle-feed in view of the concession of the dealer, and therefore, the second limb of the question is academic. The references are accordingly disposed of in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. D.M. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1992 (9) TMI 311 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... try 36. As entry 36 in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is materially different from entries in question in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, that judgment has no relevance for purposes of this case. In a recent judgment of this Court in State of A.P. v. India Rubbers 1990 76 STC 254 the question whether tread rubber falls within the entry 41 or entry 101 of the First Schedule of the Act, is answered. The Division Bench held that tread rubber falls within the entry 101 but not entry 41 of the Schedule. From the above discussion, it follows that tread rubber falls within the meaning of entry 101 of the First Schedule of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order under appeal cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Appeals taxing the turnover at the rate of 6 per cent under entry 101 is restored. The special appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Appeal allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 310 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vided that where a dealer knowingly issues or produces a false bill, voucher, declaration, certificate or other document with a view to support any claim that the transaction of sale or purchase effected by him or any other dealer is not liable to be taxed or is liable to be taxed at a reduced rate, the assessing authority, on detecting such issue or production, may direct the dealer issuing or producing such document to pay a penalty in the case of first such detection, three times the tax due in respect of such transaction and in the case of second or subsequent detection, five times the tax due in respect of such transaction. In this case, there is no finding that false documents have been produced in support of the claim knowingly. The assessee made a claim, but could not substantiate the same. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed by the assessing authority. Tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 309 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sale of food and drinks in restaurants, the matter is still pending in the Apex Court. In such circumstances, the action of the 2nd respondent has to be condemned and it seems the attitude on the part of the 2nd respondent in this case is overenthusiastic and to reach the target fixed by the department. This sort of attitude should be condemned and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should see that his subordinate officers are not indulging in such practice under the guise of collecting sales tax. Therefore I direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 1,000 collected from the petitioner as compounding fee and Rs. 37,577 by way of cheque towards tax, on production of a copy of this order forthwith. It is open to them to take any proceeding according to law. I do hope that the officers of the respondents will behave better at least in future and therefore I am not awarding any costs in this case. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 308 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... e by the learned Company judge, the petitioner-company resorted to the remedy as mentioned in the agreement dated September. 26, 1979, which stipulated that in the event of any dispute arising from the agreement, the matter could be referred to the arbitrator. The petitioner-company moved an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator before the Delhi High Court which appointed Mr. Justice Avadh Behari Rohtagi, since retired, as sole arbitrator. The arbitrator has rendered the award and the parties filed objections under section 30 of the Arbitration Act and the same are pending adjudication. In view of these subsequent events and even otherwise, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned company judge. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is bereft of any merit and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. C.M. Nos. 1 of 1992, 34 and 35 of 1991 in Company Appeal No. 20 of 1985 are disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (9) TMI 307 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... hether the decree would bind the beneficiary trust or the beneficiary market association, is a point not germane to the issues before us. Under those circumstances, I feel compelled to set aside the order admitting the winding-up petition in the court below. The said petition shall stand dismissed but without any costs as the petitioning creditors have proceeded in capacity as trustees for the estate of Mriganka Mohan Sur and I do not find their action to be mala fide. The bank guarantee given by the company shall forthwith be discharged and returned to the company by the learned Registrar, O. S., within a period of a fortnight from the date hereof. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms. The learned Registrar, O. S., the bank involved in the bank guarantee and all others concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment and order. Stay of operation of this order is asked for but the same is refused. Prabir Kumar Majumdar J. mdash I agree.
-
1992 (9) TMI 306 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... ny at Calcutta or that his provident fund contributions are made at Calcutta or that the income-tax deductions are made at Calcutta, etc., whether considered separately or cumulatively are of no consequence and relevance in determining the jurisdiction of the court for trying the offence. Since the offence has been committed at Delhi for reason elaborately discussed by me and section 181(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to the case for reasons already discussed, the court which has jurisdiction to try the case under section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the Delhi court and not the Calcutta court. The Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta has no jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings pending in the 17th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner accused under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, is hereby quashed. The revisional application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (9) TMI 305 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... icient material has been placed on record to show that it has capacity to pay its debts and discharge other responsibilities. The material facts being not admitted, the case law on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Narang would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. The only remedy is that the petitioners to seek relief from the civil court and that too after obtaining a finding by leading evidence that the goods sent by it were not defective or that for the sole reason that no intimation was sent with regard to the defective goods as per terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties, the respondent-company was liable to pay. In the present proceedings, as referred to above, it cannot be held that there is any admission that an amount of Rs. 45,262.50 is due towards the petitioner or that the respondent-company is unable to discharge its liabilities. Finding no merit in this petition, I hereby dismiss the same. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
........
|
