Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1959 1959 (9) 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 41 to 50 of 50 Records

• 1959 (9) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... purchases of the goods by the respondents were completed on the dates of exhibits P-4 to P-6 and nothing prevented them from maintaining an account of the value of the goods after obtaining delivery except dilatory practices which they set up for their own convenience. It is clear that they are guilty of a breach of rule 45(l) and are liable to punishment under rule 64. I find them guilty under rule 64 read with rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. On the question of the sentence, there is considerable force in the plea of Sri T. Bali Reddy on their behalf that they were misled by no objection having been previously taken to the practice which they (1) 23 Q.B.D. 168 at page 172. followed. The offence may be regarded as technical, inasmuch as no oblique motive has been alleged by the prosecution. The respondents are each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 with simple imprisonment for one week in default. Time for payment of fine one month. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that the decision of the inferior tribunal was against law and a superior court which had seisin of the case as a court of revision at the time when the retrospective legislation was enacted and which had the jurisdiction to interfere in case where an error of law was committed could give effect to that law. In the instant case the effect of section 2 of Act VII of 1956 is that assessments were lawful on the date on which they were made. It follows that there was an error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal when it held that the disputed turnover should not be taken into account. Being an error of law, this Court would have jurisdiction to rectify it under section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The order of the Appellate Tribunal granting exemption in respect of the turnovers aforesaid is set aside, and they will be directed to be included in the assessable turnover. The revision petitions are allowed. But there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... emand being limited to the issue we have mentioned above, the liability of the second item with the turnover of Rs. 3,02,639-3-0 to sales tax. It is open to the Tribunal to allow the assessee an opportunity to supplement the evidence already on record. Even if such further evidence is not offered, then with reference to the facts already on record the Tribunal will consider whether even a portion of the turnover is of sales of articles delivered for consumption outside the State of Madras, and if so, whether Madras State could not tax such sales, despite the President s Sales Tax Continuance Order. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal will stand confirmed. In fact, those findings were not challenged before us. The order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent indicated above. The Tribunal will hear the appeal afresh on the lines indicated above and dispose of it in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in the proceedings before us. Case remanded.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 31 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... purely one of accounting and since the petitioners never produced their account books before the Sales Tax Authorities nor furnished any return of their sales, it is obvious that no such question was raised by the petitioners before the Superintendent of Sales Tax or before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax or before the Board of Revenue. As we have already said, the question raised by the petitioners for the first time in the High Court is a question of fact which was not raised before the Sales Tax Authorities and which was not investigated by them. It is impossible, therefore, for us to entertain this question for the first time in the High Court and determine it. For this reason also we hold that there is no merit in this writ application and the petitioners have not made out a case for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. For these reasons we hold that this application fails and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nding of the Tribunal in regard to the extent of the lands owned by the petitioners and that of the lands proved to have been leased to them. The price of sugar-cane grown on those lands was excluded from the turnover of the petitioners held to be assessable. The remand is thus confined to the consideration of the question of the assessability of the sale price of the sugar-cane grown on the other two classes of lands, that is the lands which the petitioners failed to prove had been leased to them and the lands the produce of which the petitioners claim had been sold by the growers benami, that is, in the name of the petitioners. The Tribunal will give further opportunities both to the petitioners and to the State to let in further evidence to decide the questions at issue, mainly the question whether each of the petitioners was a dealer as defined by the Act. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will however be no order as to costs. Cases remanded.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator and Power of Tribunal to make calls

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he period for which the standard rent is to have effect covers not more than a month and a half the Simplex Company has not minded the entire liability of the Hindustan Company being determined at the rate of Rs. 35 per mensem between 14th of September, 1956, and the end of October, 1956. I, therefore, deduct Rs. 337-8-0 which according to this calculation have been paid in excess to the Simplex Company. The Hindustan Company shall be liable to pay to the Simplex Company a round sum of Rs. 17,100 on account of unpaid rent and electric charges up to 31st of October, 1956. The official liquidator shall treat the claim of the Simplex Company accruing after the date of the winding up, in priority, along with other creditors who are also entitled to priority. In view of what has been stated above, the official liquidator is directed to admit the claim of the Simplex Company to Rs. 17,100 and abide by the other directions contained in this order. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Winding up – Settlement of list of contributories and application of assets

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hem. The books of the company have not been kept properly. It has not been possible to rely upon the books of the company which are incomplete or on the returns sent to the Registrar for settling a correct list of contributories. Moreover, from the realisations there will be no surplus left after payment to the creditors for a return of the capital to the contributories, as only a dividend of 4 nP. in the rupee had been declared to the creditors and the further assets which could be realised will not yield even one more naya paisa in the rupee. Therefore prayer (a) is granted. Prayer (b) In the circumstances, excepting the statutory books, the rest of the useless books, records, and files, which are large in volume and cluttering in appreciable portion of the limited record room of the official liquidator and whose preservation serves no useful purpose, are directed to be sold and the proceeds credited to the company. The costs of this application will come out of the estate.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... or suspend any licence which has been granted under the rules. But the power to do so is vested in him and not in the State Government and can only be exercised by him at his discretion. No other person or authority can do it. I do not see how this decision can help the petitioner. As pointed out earlier there is nothing in section 141A which excludes persons other than those mentioned in the section from preferring complaints in respect of offences relating to the company. With great respect I decline to follow the view taken by the Lahore High Court in Lala Ganpat Rai v. Emperor 1948 18 Comp. Cas. 12, as in my opinion the view taken by the High Court of Calcutta in Surendra Nath Sarkar v. Kalipada Das 1940 10 Comp. Cas. 141 , lays down the law correctly. It follows that the Registrar was competent to prefer the complaint and that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case. No other point arises for consideration in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1959 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Summons - Customs

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 49 packages remained for examination. Still it is alleged in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that 55 packages contained torch bulbs of 2.4 volts, obviously an inconsistent statement. What the explanation for the discrepancy is I am not called upon to determine. The only question I have to determine is the question whether the Assistant Collector of Customs should or should not be prohibited from compelling the attendance of the petitioner to give evidence. Now I have found that the petitioner is not an accused person he is bound to appear and, subject to what I have said in the earlier writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 848 and 849 of 1958, is bound to give evidence. There is no justification for saying at this stage that the action of the Department is no bona fide. The other contentions urged by Mr. Ramaprasada Rao have a bearing only on the question of the bona fides or otherwise of the petitioner in importing the goods and are irrelevant to the only question I have to decide.

  ---

123