|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 28 of 28 Records
-
1956 (1) TMI 20 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tended by him is significantly silent on the point of movables left by him. Technically, there may be some substance in this contention, but on reading the plaint as a whole I think it is apparent that what the plaintiffs meant to allege in the plaint was that Gokul Chand Bairoliya died without leaving any property either movable or immovable and that in any case the plaintiffs did not come in possession of any part of the property movable or immovable which originally belonged to the joint family or still belongs to the joint family. In the plaint the main relief sought by them, as it appears to me, is that the certificates for the realisation of the taxes assessed on the Hindu undivided family cannot be realised by the arrest and detention in prison of the plaintiffs. Therefore, this last contention also advanced by the learned Government Advocate fails. In the result, therefore, I think the appeal should be allowed with costs throughout. MISRA, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.
-
1956 (1) TMI 19 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oner is satisfied (i) that the dealer has been liable to pay tax in respect of any period, and (ii) that he has wilfully failed to apply for registration. But the date of his satisfaction is not the date for computing the period of limitation as he cannot proceed to assess the dealer until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, that is, not until he is given a notice in Form XII. Therefore, unless the period for which the assessment has to be made ends within 3 years from the date when the Commissioner issues the notice in Form XII, it cannot be the subject of assessment. 8.. In the above view the assessment cannot be made for any period which expired before 3 years from 21st June, 1952. It is, therefore, directed that the Sales Tax Officer shall proceed to assess the petitioner accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.
-
1956 (1) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aken back by the Sales Tax Officer, apparently on a representation made by a partner who appeared on 28th January, 1950, it must, in our opinion, be held that the notice ceased to be effective as it was withdrawn. Therefore, in our opinion, the applicants never had proper notice of the proceed- ings before the assessment was made. The absence of such notice and the omission to give the applicants an opportunity to be heard by the Sales Tax Officer who made the assessment, as held in our decision in Revision Application No. 19 of 1955, dated 27th July, 1955, must be held to have vitiated the proceedings held by the said officer so far as the applicants are concerned and the order of the assessment cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand against them. We, accordingly, allow the application and set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer, the order in appeal made by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax and the order of the Additional Collector of Sales Tax. Application allowed.
-
1956 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... relates to the levy of tax on electrical goods will have to fail. But the learned counsel for the State points out that a further item of a refund of tax, namely, a sum of Rs. 546 claimed by the appellant company and levied on a turnover of Rs. 34,947-8-0, is not sustainable in view of the fact that in the plaint itself, it was not stated that the other items related to goods sold out- side the State of Madras. The only piece of evidence that seems to have been relied upon by the plaintiff is Exhibit A-15 and in that exhibit also it has not been set out that the turnover in respect of which the refund of tax is claimed took place outside the State. In view of the lack of evidence to prove that the refund claimed relates to goods sold outside the State, it is not possible to entertain the appeal of the com- pany so far as it relates to the refund of Rs. 546. In the result this appeal also has to be dismissed but without costs and it is ordered accordingly. Appeals dismissed.
-
1956 (1) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nk it is necessary that they should pay any further fee for registration and apply for cancellation as per section 8-A(2). As pointed out by Mr. Thiagarajan appearing for the petitioners, the object of registration is to enable the authorities to collect the tax as only from registered dealers taxes can be collected, and when the sales, whatever be the amount, are not liable to assessment, the necessity for registration goes and with it the necessity for paying the annual fee for it. I agree with his contention. So long as the G.O. referred to above is in force and so long as the petitioners are dealers in goods which are exempted from the tax, there is no need for them to get themselves registered or to pay the annual fee for the same. In this view the petitioners are not liable to be con- victed for non-payment of the registration fee. The convictions and sentences are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. Convictions set aside.
-
1956 (1) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1 and 11A are to be found in the Indian Income- tax Act where the expression escaped assessment has been construed in the manner in which we are construing sections 11 and 11A. The arguments of Shri Thakkar on this point also do not appear to be correct. 3.. As regards the goods alleged to have been despatched outside the Bombay State, they were not allowed by the authorities below. It seems to us that in those cases all that the applicants could produce were certain bills and letters from the customers, but no numbers of railway receipts were produced as in other cases deserving exemption. In the absence of railway receipt numbers, it was not possible for the authorities to check the contentions of the applicants that the goods in question had been despatched or sold outside the State of Bombay. We think that the authorities below were right in rejecting this contention. in the result, therefore, the applications are dismissed. Applications dismissed. (1) 1955 6 S.T.C. 687.
-
1956 (1) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Shares capital – Reduction of ,Meeting and Proceedings – Length of notice for calling meeting
-
1956 (1) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Liability as contributories of present and post members ... ... ... ... ..... ted by these judicial pronouncements the right which the liquidator has against the contributory is a statutory one and not a contractual one between the shareholders and the company. That being so, there is no cause of action which survives to the liquidator in a matter of this kind. But it has to be mentioned that since that right is a new one created by the statute as soon as the liquidators make a call and settle the list of contributories, a period of six years will enure in their favour for filing a suit for enforcing the liability. Mr. Narsimhachariar does not dispute this proposition of law. In these circumstances we are satisfied that since the liquidators have another remedy which in our opinion is not barred, there is no necessity to proceed with the second appeal. C.M.P. No. 8180 of 1955 is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the fact that the liquidators cannot come on record as legal representatives of the appellants, S.A. No. 1906 of 1951 abates and is dismissed.
|
