Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1955 1955 (7) 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 31 of 31 Records

• 1955 (7) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... olding that a particular article falls under a particular class but there can be no doubt that the Government of India has not put articles like those under consideration in the same class as ordinary photographic cameras. This fact, in our opinion, reinforces the doubt felt by us as to whether the interpretation of the word camera given by the authorities below is the correct one. In view of such doubt, we must hold that it has not been estab- lished that the expression other cameras in entry No. 4 in Schedule I to the Act of 1946 covers articles like those under consideration. 9.. Accordingly, we allow the application, set aside the orders of the authorities below, and direct that the articles in question shall be assessed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act of 1946, i.e., the tax payable on the taxable turnover in respect of the sales of the said machines shall be the general tax at the rate of one half of an anna in the rupee. Application allowed.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 15 - TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he was entitled, under the provisions of sub-rule (3), to present the application for the previous month, i.e., the month even prior to the month of registration. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is fully justified by Form No. A-9 read with sub-rule (3) and sub-rule (2) of rule 18 and calls for no revision. 10.. Rule 18 of the Madras Rules and rule 22 of the Travancore Rules are not identical in wording and there is no form prescribed under the Travancore Rules on the lines of Form A-9 mentioned in the extract given above. In view of this it is unnecessary for us to record whether if the provisions were identical we would have endorsed the decision of the Madras High Court. All that we need say is that under the relevant Travancore provisions it is not possible to grant a similar deduction. 11.. In the light of what is stated above this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 14 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... oner can by no means be described as a dealer unless there is a sale of goods involved in the contract. Nor is there a supply of any goods from one party to the other. The amount received by the contractor does not represent the sale price as defined in the Act. It is the value of labour supplied and not of goods. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the transaction is exempt from liability to sales tax and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration accordingly. The order of assessment and the order levy- ing penalty are therefore set aside, and any tax collected from the petitioner shall be refunded to him. The proceedings before the Certi- ficate Officer, Puri, are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of this application which we assess at Rs. 250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only). The petitioner shall also have a refund of the court fees collected from him by the Tax Authorities. RAO, J-I agree. Petition allowed. (1) (1886) 11 App. Cas. 350.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... half of a buyer, who had taken delivery of the goods, that the journey was performed. If the delivery has taken place within the State of Madras the tax liability has accrued and this is not altered or affected by reason of the subse- quent despatch of the goods at the instance of the buyer from the State of Madras to Ernakulam outside the State. At another place, the learned Judge expressed the same idea in the following terms But the crucial fact which has to be established before the ex- emption could be claimed is that there should be an actual delivery of the goods outside the State. We respectfully agree with these observations. Indeed, this legal position was not canvassed by the learned counsel but his attempt (1) 1955 6 S.T.C. 230. was only to establish that delivery was not made to the buyers within the Andhra State and we hold that he has failed to do so. In the result, the revision case is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 12 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ate, that the Act does not apply to oral contracts as such. It must be remembered that a tax is levied on the turnover of the contractor and not on the nature of the terms of the contract. We would accordingly hold that the contract in the present case is governed by the proviso to section 4(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, and that the turnover of the petitioner is exempt from liability to taxation. In the view we have taken, of the interpretation to be put upon the proviso to section 4(1) it is unnecessary to decide here whether the contract relates to earth work only and as such is liable to be exempted from taxation. We would therefore allow this petition and declare that the peti- tioner is not liable to pay any tax, or penalty, which has been imposed upon him by the Sales Tax Department. The petitioner will also have the costs of this application which we assess at Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred) only. Any tax, if paid, shall be refunded. RAO, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 11 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sales tax should not use undefined or vague terms, for the simple reason that different assessing authorities may well interpret such terms differently. Had the Excise and Taxation Commissioner issued instruc- tions, specifying the articles covered by this term, the position would have been quite different. Instead of using this undefined term, it would have been more to the point if the articles embraced by this term were specified in the Certificate of Registration. In all matters relating to taxation, the subject is entitled to the benefit of interpretation, and the authorities concerned with assessment should not be at liberty to interpret undefined terms in the manner that suits them. 5.. This revision petition is accordingly accepted. While doing so, I would also direct the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to define precisely what is meant by karyana , and, what is more important, give wide publicity to this definition. 6.. Orders to be communicated. Petition accepted.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cannot, therefore, throw any light on the construction of rule 4(2)(a), for, as we have already stated, ground-nut takes in kernel also. Our conclusion is also in accord with the view expressed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Radhakrishna Ground-nut Oil Mill v. State of Madras(1). Rajagopalan J., negativing a similar con- tention, says at page 551 as follows (1) (1954) 2 M.L.J. 550 5 S.T.C. 357. Ground-nut kernel is certainly part of ground-nut......... It is represented to us that the Hyderabad High Court has taken a different view and reliance is sought to be placed on Kishenlal Oil Mills v. Commissioner, Sales Tax Department, Government of Hyderabad(1). We cannot rely on short notes of cases decided by other High Courts as there is no way of verifying their correctness. No other point is argued. The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 250. Petition dismissed. (1) A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. 1946 Reported at p. 650 supra.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ner shall jointly and severally be responsible for the payment of the tax leviable under the Act. A plain reading of this rule shows that it is intended to apply to a case of subsequent partnership. So rule 19 does not support the con- tention of the learned Government Pleader. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision in Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Madras(1) where it has been held that if the amendments relating to taxing of works contracts introduced in 1947 by the Madras Legislature are intended to catch in the net of tax the aforesaid building contracts, to that extent the amendments are ultra vires the Madras Legislature. The correctness of the assessment has not been raised before the Tribunal or in this Court, and it is unnecessary, therefore, to decide the question in this case. In the result, the majority decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal is affirmed and this Revision Case is dismissed with costs, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed. (1) 1954 5 S.T.C. 216.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 8 - PEPSU HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... parately or along with the tractor which are used for agricultural purposes. These parts are certainly agricultural implements and the mere fact that they are power driven does not take away from them the character of agricul- tural implements. I, therefore, hold that the tractors are not exempt from sales tax but the other parts referred to above are agricultural implements within the meaning of entry 35 of the Schedule of exemptions. As regards the third point, it has been conceded by the depart- mental representative that the formality of issuing a notice for enhance- ment of the taxable turnover was not observed in this case. The case is, therefore, remanded to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner with the following directions 1.. A regular notice should be issued to the assessees as to why their taxable turnover should not be enhanced. 2.. While the tractors should be taxed, the implements of the nature referred to above should be exempted from sales tax. Case remanded.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
  

  Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... creditor of the company must be referred to a suit. An order for winding up a company is a compulsory process to be thought of when the conditions mentioned in the section are satisfied and implies exercise of discretion. It is not to be sought for as a short cut and cheap device to coerce payment and stifle contest. The mere failure of payment cannot be treated as a decisive factor to entitle a party invoking the aid of the section or as a ground for the court embarking on an elaborate inquiry for the purpose of determining complicated questions as if it is a suit to be tried though no court fee is paid. The apathy to the proceedings shown by the respondents by their absence indicates want of interest and that they are not seriously mindful of the result. This may be due to the respondents being content with the remedy available by means of a suit. In view of all this, the order of the lower court has to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1955 (7) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Precedent - Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 8.Mr. Seervai has rightly contended that questions of a disputed interpretation of a section will not ordinarily be determined on a writ petition but in this case it appears to me that the interpretation of item 45(3) can only be one and it is not reasonably possible for any person to take a contrary view. This, in my opinion, is not a case of competent authority having come to one of two possible conclusions. This is a case of a competent authority having usurped jurisdiction by wrongly interpreting an item which is not capable of such an interpretation. 9.In my opinion, therefore, the consignment can only be subjected to duty at 30 per cent ad valorem under item 45(3) and therefore a mandamus shall issue restraining the respondent from enforcing payment of any duty higher than 30 per cent and directing him to release the goods in so far as they have been detained for payment of duty upon payment of 30 per cent duty. Respondent to pay the petitioner s costs fixed at Rs. 250.

  ---

12