|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 51 of 51 Records
-
1955 (9) TMI 44
... ...
... ... ..... 4-0 per meal on the latter, the applicants have made no attempt to show, by producing documents in their possession or otherwise, that the meals on Sundays and holidays were being charged for in the case of boarders at double the ordinary rates. The practice for the boarders was to buy coupons and pay for the meals by means of those coupons. The applicants, however, do not maintain any account of the coupon books showing either the number of such books printed or the number of such books sold to their customers. In these circumstances the only rational method of arriving at the average cost of meal would be to divide the total amount for a month or a fortnight by the number of meals sup- plied to each boarder during the month or fortnight. We think that the authorities below were justified in the method of calculation adopted by them, and that the applicants have no good grounds for objecting to the assessment. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 43
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal in estimating the gross profit rate on sales did not act on any material but acted on pure surmise. In the result, we allow this revision, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case to it with a direction that in arriving at its estimate of gross profit it should give full opportunity to the assessee to place any relevant material on the point. It will be open to the assessing authority to place any evidence or material to support the estimate made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or by the Tribunal in its judgment. The Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, remit the case to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for making a fresh assessment after taking such further evidence as is furnished by the assessee or the Department. The costs of the revision will abide the result of the appeal before the Tribunal. Advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 100. Case remanded. (1) 1954 26 I.T.R. 775 (1955) 1 M.L.J. 60 S.C. Case remanded. (1) 1954 26 I.T.R. 775 (1955) 1 M.L.J. 60 S.C.
-
1955 (9) TMI 42
... ...
... ... ..... he said amount of Rs. 130-15-5 already paid by it under protest. Answer The petitioner-mills were not liable to pay the sum of Rs. 130-15-5 to the Government, that the Government were not entitled to collect it under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and that they are liable to refund the same to the petitioner- mills. So far as Writ Petition No. 39 of 1954 is concerned, we hold that the petitioner-company are entitled to the writ applied for. In the result, these petitions (Civil Petition No. 111 of 1954 and Writ Petition No. 39 of 1954) are allowed. We direct that in Civil Petition No. 111 of 1954 the amount collected by the respondent-Government from the petitioner-mills be refunded to them. In Writ Petition No. 39 of 1954, a writ of certiorari will issue as prayed for. As the decision in these two petitions depended upon the interpretation of certain sections of the Sales Tax Act, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 40
Whether the petitioners imported tobacco from the State of Bombay in large quantities but stated that the tobacco, after its arrival in the petitioners' bidi factories, was cleaned, sieved and blended?
Held that:- The respondents will be restrained from enforcing the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and its provisions against the petitioners and from imposing a tax in respect of the transactions in question and in particular from imposing a tax on the purchase price of goods purchased on the declarations under rule 26 being goods specified in the registration certificate as intended for use as raw material in the manufacture of goods for sale by actual delivery in Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of consumption in that State but utilised for any other purpose under the provisions of section 4(6) of the Act.
-
1955 (9) TMI 39
... ...
... ... ..... set out any such plea in his reply to the demand notice of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or even in his plaint and the Subordinate Judge observes It is not denied that some of the contracts were executed in Fort Cochin . The second point taken was that the plaintiff was a non-resident foreigner who had no place of business in the Madras State and that he was not therefore liable to sales tax. If for executing the contracts or delivering the goods he came into Fort Cochin, he may not be regarded as a non-resident foreigner. But the question of his residence is really immaterial. We have to see whether he is a dealer within the meaning of the Act and he is undoubtedly so, as he is a person who carried on the business of selling goods within the State of Madras. Explanation (2) to section 2 makes the agent (if any) also a dealer and is not intended to take the principal outside the scope of liability. Therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 38
Whether that proviso to Article 286(2) also saves the transactions of sale or purchase covered by the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) from the ban imposed therein?
Held that:- The whole theory, therefore, of "inside sales" falls to the ground and the only thing which we are left with is that these transactions were inter-State transactions in which as a direct result of such sales the goods were actually delivered for the purpose of consumption in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) deter- mined the State of Uttar Pradesh to be the State in which the sales took place and which alone was entitled to tax these transactions, the State of Madhya Pradesh becoming an "outside" State for the purpose.
Apart from the ban imposed on the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto, these transactions were also in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were hit by the ban of Article 286(2). The President's order no doubt lifted that ban but was not competent to lift the ban under Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto with the result that in spite of that order the State of Madhya Pradesh was not in a position to impose a tax on these transactions during the post-Constitution period. The assessment of these transactions to tax for the post-Constitu- tion period, therefore, is invalid and cannot be sustained. Allow the petition, set aside the said order dated the 14th July, 1954, and the matter will go back to the Assessment Officer for re-assessment of the petitioners in accordance with law.
-
1955 (9) TMI 37
Levying and realising a tax questioned - Held that:- The Act imposes tax on subjects divisible in their nature but does not exclude in express terms subjects exempted by the Constitution. In such a situation the Act need not be declared wholly ultra vires and void, for it is feasible to separate taxes levied on authorised subjects from those levied on exempted subjects and to exclude the latter in the assessment of the tax. In these circumstances it is difficult to say that the scheme of taxing inter-State sales forms such an integral part of the entire scheme of taxation on sales or purchases of goods as to be inextricably inter-woven with it. There is no reason to presume that had the Bihar Legislature known that the provisions of the Act might be held bad in so far as they imposed or authorised the imposition of a tax on inter-State trade or commerce even though Parliament had not by law pro- vided otherwise it would, nevertheless, not have passed the rest of the Act.
The appeal is allowed and an order shall be issued directing that, until Parliament by law provides otherwise, the State of Bihar do forbear and abstain from imposing sales tax on out- of-State dealers in respect of sales or purchases that have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce even though the goods have been delivered as a direct result of such sales or purchases for consumption in Bihar. The State must pay the costs of the appellant in this Court and in the Court below.
-
1955 (9) TMI 15
Memorandum and articles of association – Registration of, Articles of association and Effect of memorandum and articles
-
1955 (9) TMI 8
Associations and partnerships exceeding certain numbers – Prohibition of ... ... ... ... ..... case (supra) it is held by a majority that section 4 is a bar to the maintainability of such a suit. The Calcutta High Court has held in the case reported in Nibaran Chandra v. Lalit Mohan ILR 1938 2 Cal 368, that an association, the members of which exceed twenty, is an illegal one by reason of non-registration and that a suit at the instance of one of the members of such an association is not maintainable. Coming to our own High Court, there is a decision reported in Abdul Wahed Saheb v. Badrudin Khan Sahib 22 Mys. CCR 17, in which it is laid down that a suit to recover sums of money advanced by a member of an unregistered company against another member is not maintainable inasmuch as the company was not registered. I am of opinion that the finding of the learned Munsiff that the suit was maintainable in that court cannot be supported. In the result, the finding of the learned Munsiff on the former part of the first issue is set aside and this revision petition is allowed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 2
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... uction to be adopted of Section 167(8). This is particularly so in view of the fact that the introductory portion of the order itself proceeds upon the establishment to the satisfaction of the Collector, of collusion between the broker and the petitioner in the matter of this illegal export. Even apart from this, whether mens rea is an ingredient of section 167(8) or not, it would certainly be a material factor for determining the quantum of punishment. This was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. Hence in the absence of notice to petitioner the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction and not in conformity with the Sea Customs Act. On this short ground therefore that the petitioner was not given any notice to show cause, nor an opportunity to prove his innocence before the penalty was imposed, the order of the Collector of Customs imposing the fine is quashed, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner will have his cost of this writ petition.
-
1955 (9) TMI 1
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ereupon the said stock was put up for auction on 3rd November, 1953 for realization of the the amount of the penalty and duty. It is asserted by the respondent s learned Counsel that the amount realized completely satisfied the amount of duty and the penalty. 7.The question therefore is, whether these circumstances, the order of acquittal made by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bhimunipatnam merits interference. 8.As has been rightly pointed out by the Sub-Magistrate the act of removal is not per se an offence punishable under Section 9(b). What is made punishable under Section 9(b) is the evasion of payment of duty. The removal part of the stock is made punishable under Rule 144 with a penalty which may extend to Rs. 2,000/-. That penalty had been levied and actually collected in addition to duty. I am satisfied in the circumstances there is no manifest error in the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate which calls for interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
|
