|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 486 Records
-
2003 (4) TMI 531 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . AIR 1992 SC 711 it was held that the principles of judicial discipline requires that the order of the appellate authority should be followed by their subordinate authorities and if this rule is not followed the result will be undue harassment to the litigant and chaos in the administration of justice. 7.. It is well-settled that the common parlance meaning should be given to ascertain the intention of the Legislature while interpreting a taxing entry vide 1961 12 STC 286 (SC) (Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer). 8.. Following the aforesaid decision these three writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notice dated August 27, 1991 in writ petition No. 1251 of 1991 issued by respondent No. 3 is quashed. The two orders dated December 28, 1992 annexures 21 and 22 in the writ petition No. 153 of 1993 are quashed. The notice dated August 27, 1991 impugned in the writ petition is also quashed. There will be however, no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 530 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the Government of U.P. 1986 63 STC 192, at page 197, have held The remission was granted only to the factories where the recovery from the sugarcane was low to enable the factories to make timely payments towards the cost of sugarcane and non-payment of the cane prices affecting the supply of cane to factories. It was in these circumstances that the Government granted remission to the factories which needed the help. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners that in view of G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972, similar exemption by way of refund of tax should be granted to them also, cannot be allowed. For all these reasons, original petitions Nos. 406, 407, 453 and 454 of 2001 and 71 to 73 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 28th day of April, 2003. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 529 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessing officer shall not be influenced by the earlier directions issued by the Commissioner wherein he has classified the product in dispute falling within general category and not under the specified category. 19.. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not making any observations on the merits of the matter. The assessing officer shall be free to apply his judicial mind and take an independent decision. He shall also be free to decide that the product in dispute would fall under the residuary entry or under a particular entry and what should be the tax liability of the petitioner/s. He shall also be free to record his own satisfaction that the petitioners paid the tax in accordance with law or not and if not whether they are liable to penalty or not because we have disposed of the writ application only on a legal issue that provisions of section 20(1)(a) cannot be applied at this stage to either of the assessee of these writ applications. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 528 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting of any goods fall within the meaning of the term manufacture. But it may be pointed out that every type of variation of the goods or finishing of goods would not amount to manufacture unless it results in emergence of new commercial commodity. In the instant case, the very nature of the activity does not result in manufacture because no new commercial commodity comes into existence. 7.. Brick is a baked clay in a particular shape. Gitti of bricks is a small piece of bricks thus, both bricks and ballast (gitti) are one and same product. Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court, it is held that gitti made out of bricks purchased after paying tax, is not liable to tax again. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of Tribunal dated February 4, 1991 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to pass an appropriate order under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 527 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etitioner Rs. 13,611 but the tax was charged by Steel Authority of India Ltd., on the price of Rs. 13,171 and not on the stock yard price of Rs. 13,611 as alleged by the respondents vide paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter-affidavit. 12.. The principle of undue enrichment is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as admittedly the wire rods were purchased from the respondents and raw material was not sold as such but was consumed for the manufacture of other goods. Hence in view of the division Bench decision in the case of Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1999 UPTC 13 paragraph 11 the doctrine of undue enrichment does not apply. The wire rods having been consumed are raw material for the manufacture of new commodities. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the refund of Rs. 16,09,560 alongwith 15 per cent interest per annum from the respondent U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. 13.. The petition is allowed with the above directions. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 526 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e after withdrawal of sales tax exemption and other incentives. The withdrawal of exemption vide exhibit P8 notification also cannot be challenged because section 10(3) specifically authorise the Government to withdraw or modify exemption notification issued under section 10(1) of the K.G.S.T. Act. Since in petitioners case the withdrawal applies prospectively and after due notice, the petitioner cannot make additional investments after withdrawal of sales tax exemption and then claim principle of promising estoppel based on earlier notification which stand modified. In the circumstances, original petitions fall and are dismissed. However, in view of the huge amount of tax involved petitioner is granted ten weeks time to clear arrears of tax. Order on CMP No. 11708 of 2001 in O.P. No. 32947 of 2000 (V) dismissed. Order on CMP No. 56006 of 2000 in O.P. No. 32807 of 2000 (E) dismissed. Order on CMP No. 38472 of 2001 in O.P. No. 23472 of 2001 (T) dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 525 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 17(5A) is concerned, the Officer will reconsider the issue and if found against, penalty under section 17(5A) has to be levied subject to assessees right of appeal against reassessment. However, if the Officer finds section 17(4) order could have been rectified, he shall do so substituting section 19(1) order and by deleting penalty levied under section 17(5A). Assessees aggrieved by orders issued by the officers as above are free to file fresh appeals or pursue appeals already filed on merits. If any petitioner has not filed appeal against re-assessment on account of pendency of original petition and if appeal is filed within one month of receipt of this judgment, the appellate authority will entertain it as filed in time and dispose of the same on merits in the light of the findings and observations in this judgment. 13.. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 7069 of 2003 in O.P. No. 4069 of 2003 dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 524 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ven without filing formal application, amendment can be made. The object of the registration being to give relief to the petitioner for the purchase of materials from places outside the State, there is no just ground for refusal of the amendment from the date of first purchase of petitioner. Mrs. Roy frankly submits before this Court that if the amendment is effected from the date of first purchase, there will be no loss of revenue. 20.. Under such circumstances, I find that the authorities below acted illegally in allowing amendment only from the date of the formal application, subsequently, filed by the petitioner. I thus set aside the orders impugned and direct the respondent authorities to incorporate the amendment from the date of first purchase of materials pursuant to the registration granted by the respondent authority. 21.. The writ application is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. 22.. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Writ application allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 523 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1995 UPTC 772. 14.. In Sushil Oil Industry v. State of U.P. 1995 UPTC 1177 a division Bench of this Court held that an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner while disposing of the application under section 4-A is not binding. 15.. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises 1999 114 STC 365 1999 UPTC 250, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of section 4-A is to promote development of industries and hence the provision has to be liberally construed. 16.. On the facts of the case we therefore hold that the machinery was new and the review application was arbitrarily and illegally rejected by the impugned order. Calcutta Silicate and Chemical Industries v. State of U.P. 1990 UPTC 516. 17.. We, therefore allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated March 30, 1991 and December 10, 1987 and direct that the petitioner shall be given eligibility certificate as prayed for by the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 522 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... into West Bengal without production of waybills violated section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The seizure is therefore valid. However, the two cases cited above raises a legitimate suspicion that something is amiss about the functioning of the Duburdhi check-post and the Asansol M.V. Office. As one conversant with the working of M.V. Offices and border check-posts in West Bengal I shall be failing in my duty if I do not bring these lapses to the notice of the State Government at the appropriate levels. Hence copy of this order may be sent by name to the Finance Secretary, West Bengal and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. 15.. The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of the operation of the order. The learned State Representative opposed it. We do not find any ground for granting stay as the order is quite clear about the definition of personal effect and its ambit. Therefore, the petitioners prayer is rejected. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 521 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed order passed by the learned Commercial Tax Officer should be set aside so far the findings on the issue of penalty are concerned. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings made and the order of seizure passed by the Learned Commercial Tax Officer and also hold the seizure to be legal and valid. 15.. The application is therefore, disposed of with the direction upon the learned CTO to reopen the proceedings of penalty afresh and before imposing penalty if any, he shall make a positive finding as to whether, the petitioner evaded payment of taxes or had an intention to evade payment of taxes. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of being heard. 16.. The application is thus disposed of without any cost. 17.. After the delivery of order, the learned state representative prays for stay of the operation of this order. The prayer is considered and rejected. Let the copies of this order be issued to both the parties. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (4) TMI 520 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... etc., by registered post and then only there can be affixture. Admittedly, the respondent had not attempted any of the above methods before taking the course of affixture, on the ground, that no service postage stamp was available. The non-availability of the service postage stamp cannot be a ground to circumvent rule 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, which mentions clearly the mode of service of summons, notices and orders. Without properly serving the pre-assessment notice, the respondent cannot resort to the best judgment assessment. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the respondent has to be set aside. 8.. In the result, O.P. No. 421 of 2003 is allowed. Consequently, O.M.P.No. 469 of 2003 does 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 28th day of April , 2003. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 519 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there is no provision in the Act and the Rules under which an eligibility certificate granted in terms of rules 28A(2) read with rule 28A(4) and (5) can be corrected and that too on the basis of the application filed after almost six years of expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under rule 28A(5)(f) of the Rules and more than three years of availing the benefit of tax exemption in terms of the eligibility and exemption certificates granted in November and December, 1992. 10.. We are further of the view that the only remedy available to the petitioner against any error in certificate, annexure P1, was to file an appeal under rule 28A(5)(f) of the Rules which it failed to avail within the limitation of thirty days. The HLSC too did not commit any illegality by refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner because there is no provision in the Rules for such appeal. 11.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 518 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lenged. While deciding the said case, the apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai AIR 1999 SC 22. 28.. Thus, the law can be summarised that rule of exclusion of the writ jurisdiction is not a law but discretion to be exercised by the court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and if the case requires any kind of evidence etc., the writ court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at all. 29.. Thus, in view of the above, as the statutory remedy was available to the petitioner in Muzaffarnagar itself, we fail to understand why the petitioner has taken the trouble to come to this Court. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel has merit and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed only on this ground. 30.. Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under section 13-A(6) of the Act. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 517 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd Constitution Bench judgment and in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 in State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (2001) 1 SCC 610 has held that an opportunity of hearing must be given by the authority concerned before passing any order affecting the rights of the person. 9.. The Tribunal has not examined the merits of the case and has allowed the appeal on the short ground that the Divisional Level Committee had no authority and jurisdiction to pass the order dated July 12, 2001. The Department is not remediless if the order dated July 12, 2001 is set aside. There is adequate provision under section 4-A(3) of the Act if the department is at all aggrieved by the subsequent inclusion of plastic/paper pouches in the eligibility certificate. 10.. Having regard to the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated July 3, 2002 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 516 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te is much greater and, in order to tax something, it is not necessary to tax everything. In order to see whether classification in a particular taxing provision is valid, the Court must look beyond the ostensible classification and to the purpose of the law and apply the test of palpable arbitrariness in the context of the felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience to determine the reasonableness of the classification. 7.. In the case on hand, it cannot be said that there is unreasonable classification as sought to be made out by the counsel. The object of providing exemption is not diluted or denied by increasing from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs. In the given set of circumstances, I am unable to accept the argument of the counsel that the present action is in violation of article 14. The contention is without substance and it requires to be rejected. No other point is argued before me. 8.. Writ petition stands rejected. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 515 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... artment, for taxing the goods in question as unclassified items, to the petitioner. The said notice was challenged by filing writ petition No. 258 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated March 10, 2003, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.P.L. Limited 2001 121 STC 450 quashed the notice and restrained the respondents from realising tax on electronic goods used for medical, testing and measuring purposes as unclassified item. 11.. Following the aforesaid judgment, I hold that the goods in question are electronic goods and are covered by entry 74 of the notification dated October 1, 1994 and entry 75(iii) of Notification No. 298 dated January 29, 2000 and are liable to be taxed as such. 12.. The revision is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Any excess amount realised by the department shall be refunded to the applicant in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from today. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 514 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e same is pending. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Act, we deem it proper to accept the petitioners prayer for release of the amount representing 75 per cent of the bank guarantee furnished by it for release of goods. 16.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount equivalent to 75 per cent of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner on July 25, 2002. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, else the petitioner shall get interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. July 29, 2002, i.e., the date on which the demand drafts were encashed. The petitioner shall get costs of Rs. 5000. The State Government shall be free to recover the amount of costs from the officer, who held the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-III, at the relevant time. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 513 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ry form with due counter-signature of the appropriate officials and subsequent legalisation by the appropriate order of the Government establishes beyond doubt that the documents are acceptable as a proof of purchase from the Andhra dealer. Therefore, the sales tax authorities below should have applied the second proviso to sub-section (2) for giving benefit of furnishing form C for second sale to Haldia Refinery but because of mistaken view they have applied the first proviso clauses (a) and (b) without reading the second proviso. 18.. Under those circumstances I find that the three orders passed by the prescribed authority have been passed without lawful exercise of jurisdiction, as they have not applied the correct law. Those three orders are liable to be and are thereby set aside. Secondly, I declare that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under section 6(2) of the said Act. Thus, I allow this application, however, without any order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 512 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... instalment. As the petitioner had admittedly cleared the entire dues by payment in instalments as allowed by the order of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Taxes, no default can be attributed to the writ petitioner in the matter of payment of the dues as mentioned in the demand notices in question. Section 22 of the Act under which the interest appears to have been imposed by the notice dated August 8, 1999, therefore, would have no application to the present case and the demand for interest as raised, does not appear to be legal and valid. Consequently, the notices dated August 8, 1999, January 4, 2000 and January 7, 2000 impugned in the present writ application shall stand set aside and quashed and the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order, is directed to be returned by the authority to the writ petitioner within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. 5.. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
