Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1954 1954 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 29 of 29 Records

• 1954 (8) TMI 24 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d agent will relieve the agent from liability, but the principal cannot escape taxation by reason of omission of such sales in his annual turnover. From the foregoing discussion the answer to the first point in the statement of case is that the principals are liable for taxation for sales through licensed agents, even though the principals have not collected sales tax and have not included the said commission sales in their turn- over. The sales effected by agents who have not been licensed under section 9 can claim no exemption from tax. They are taxable as any other dealer and the principal who sells his goods to an agent will also be liable. Though the liability of both the principal and the unlicensed dealer is joint and several, the tax on the same transaction cannot be collected twice or from both the principal and the agent. The reference is thus answered. The respondent will pay the costs of the State of Mysore. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... person . It is no doubt that any person would only refer to a dealer and not to a non-dealer. Under sec- tion 9 every dealer whose turnover is over Rs. 10,000 though he ought to (1) 1952 3 S.T.C. 26 1952 M.W.N. Crl. 162. have got himself registered, and whether he has got himself registered or not, shall submit a return and if he does not, he is certainly liable for the violation of the provisions of section 9 and is punishable under section 15(a). The accused in this case is therefore guilty for violating the provisions of section 9 of the Act. The first court was, therefore, right in convicting him under section 15(a) read with section 9 of the Act. In the result, the acquittal by the Sessions judge is set aside and the conviction by the trial court is restored. The accused is convicted under section 15(a) read with section 9 of the Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. Acquittal set aside.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Federal Court in Mohammad Amin Bros. Ltd. v. The Dominion of India(1), that contention has to be negatived. The learned judges of the Federal Court observed If the order which is made in this case is an interlocutory order, the judgment must necessarily be held to be an interlocutory judgment and the collocation of the words judgment, decree or final order in sec- tion 205(1) of the Government of India Act makes it clear that no appeal is provided for against an interlocutory judgment or order . That principle was followed and applied in construing a judgment, decree or final order within the meaning of Article 133(1) of the Con- stitution by a Division Bench of this Court in Raghavacharyulu v. Venkataramanujacharyulu(2). Since the requirements of Article 133(1) have not been satisfied, we are unable to grant the certificates for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. These petitions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed. (1) 1950 S.C.J. 139. (2) (1954) 1 M.L.J. 198.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the State of Uttar Pradesh, has become void as a consequence. This petition must, therefore, be allowed and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the judge (Appeals), Sales Tax, must be quashed in so far as they levy tax on sales in contravention of clause (1)(a) of Article 286 of the Constitution, viz., in respect of sales to the extent of Rs. 1,55,073. The petition is accordingly allowed and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the judge (Appeals), Sales Tax, imposing sales tax on those sales amounting to Rs. 1,55,073 are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs from the opposite parties which I assess at Rs. 400. It does not appear to be necessary to make any further direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of tax which has been realised from the petitioner by virtue of orders of assessment which have been quashed today as the petitioner would, no doubt, be entitled to a refund by applying to the appropriate authorities. Petition allowed.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 20 - TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the wider meaning of that word, that each is a fruit , and that neither is a nut . The Court said Counsel for the plaintiff suggested a test which I think apposite. Would a householder when asked to bring home fruit or vegetables for the evening meal bring home salted peanuts, cashewnuts or nuts of any sort? The answer is obviously no . 10.. A perusal of the Travancore General Sales Tax Act, 1124, makes it quite clear that the word tea is not used therein in the sense it is used in commerce, in Mincing Lane or a grocer s shop, but in the sense of a product of plant life, the resultant crop of man s labour in the culture of land. 11.. It follows that the green leaves, just like those leaves after they are processed, are liable to sales tax under the provisions of the Act and that the contention of the petitioner should be overruled. 12.. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs, advo- cate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed. (1) 1951 C.L.R. (Excheque Court) 122.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Company – Membership of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ill be by no means an easy task to carry out the process of assessment when such claims in respect of the same shares are made by a succession of unregistered holders. On the other hand, the obvious injustice of taxing an amount which is, in fact, dividend income and withholding from it the benefits contemplated by the Act cannot be ignored. Since transfers under blank transfer forms are permitted by law and since it is of the essence of the dealings in the stock exchange that such transfers should take place, it seems desirable and even necessary that a suitable adjustment in regard to the matter of taxation should be undertaken and made by legislation. But till such legislation comes to be undertaken, the courts must declare the law as it is under the present Act. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred must, in my opinion, be in the negative. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, will have his costs of the reference. Lahiri J. mdash I agree.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Shares – Allotment of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t allotment. In the circumstances, I do not consider that the proposal made by the defendants in their applications for shares could be said to have been revoked by lapse of time under section 6(2) of the Indian Contract Act. In view of my agreeing with the lower court on this point, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendants are in any event barred from contending that the allotment is void or voidable under section 101 of the Companies Act by reason of no portion of the share money having been sent along with the share applications as under section 102 of the Companies Act. Any such allotment should be avoided within one month after the holding of the statutory meeting of the company and not later. In this case the statutory meeting was held on 28th September, 1947, and no question of avoiding the allotment arises, as no. steps have been taken by the defendants in this regard. In the result, the revision petitions are dismissed with costs mdash One advocate s fee.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Company – Incorporation of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... appear to be necessary to refer to cases in which this principle has been clearly laid down as it has been very well recognised. In these circumstances, since the sales tax has been assessed on the company and not on the shareholders, the Collector is entitled to proceed against the assets of the company only and any proceedings taken against the shareholders or their personal assets are void and against law. Consequently, these petitions are allowed and it is hereby ordered that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Collector of Bulandshahr, restraining him from taking proceedings to realise the sales tax of the District Syndicate Bulandshahr, Limited, from the person or personal assets of these petitioners. This order is not to be interpreted as restraining the Collector from proceeding against any assets of the company which may be in the hands of any individual shareholder. The petitioner, in each case, will be entitled to his costs from the opposite party in the petition.

  ---

• 1954 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Precedent - Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ndicated to the authorities that they wanted a permit which covered the subject matter of Serial No. 103 and item 25 (7) of the Indian Tariff Act. It is too much to expect that the appellants did not know the distinction between marble as used in Serial No. 103 and marbles as game requisites used in Serial No. 325. There is absolutely no substance whatever in the grievance made by the appellants. The result, therefore, is that the appeal of the Collector, namely, appeal No. 78/X of 1954, will be allowed with costs throughout, and the petition of the petitioners will be dismissed with costs, and Appeal No. 70/X of 1954 will be dismissed with costs. Liberty to the appellants attorneys in appeal No. 78/X of 1954 to withdraw the sum of Rs. 500/- deposited for costs, and liberty to the respondents attorneys in appeal No. 70/X of 1954 to withdraw the sum of Rs. 500/- deposited by the appellants attorneys, and to apply the said sum in part satisfaction of the order for costs herein.

  ---

12