|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 90 Records
-
1961 (3) TMI 88
Suit for redemption - Mortgage - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. All the courts concurrently found that in fact possession was delivered to the mortgagee on the basis of the mortgage deed, Ex. B. They have also found that the plea of discharge taken by the appellants was not true. The High Court found that under the mortgage deed the mortgagee had a duty to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord, but he made a default in paying the said arrears. The High Court farther held that the sale was the result of manifest dereliction of the duty imposed upon the mortgagee by the very terms of the transaction. The said findings clearly attract the provisions of s. 90 of the Indian Trusts Act. In view of the aforesaid principles, the right to redeem the mortgage is not extinguished and in the eye of law the purchase in the rent sale must be deemed to have been made in trust for the mortgagor. In the promises, the High Court was right in holding that the suit for redemption was maintainable.
-
1961 (3) TMI 87
... ...
... ... ..... y, in his discretion, exercise the powers of a lower authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any dealer or class of dealers. This also leads to the conclusion that the Commercial Tax Officer specially appointed for investigation of evasions is empowered to exercise the powers of the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in this case, to assess the tax payable on the escaped turnover under clause (4) of section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that this notification cannot be stretched to go against rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. In the result, the Tax Revision Case No. 24 of 1960 is allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. A similar question arises in Tax Revision Cases Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1960. In view of our decision in Tax Revision Case No. 24 of 1960, these tax revision cases are allowed, but without costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 86
... ...
... ... ..... eeded Rs. 25,000 and wherever they were sold. There is no reason why an intention should be attributed to the Legislature to discriminate against articles of food or drink and to levy a higher tax on these goods whenever the turnover of a dealer was above Rs. 25,000. It must be remembered that the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act does not contain any other provision where the incidence of tax is dependent upon the plase of sale of goods. Taking into account the context and the purport of the Act, we think that the higher incidence of tax was meant for places like hotels, boarding-houses, restaurants, stalls and other places similar to those where those articles of food or drink are sold for immediate consumption. To construe it otherwise would, in our opinion, be contrary to the intention of the Legislature. For these reasons, we are inclined to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal and dismiss the revision case with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 85
... ...
... ... ..... racted on the sale of rolled steel sections it is not attracted a second time or at the second stage on the same commodity in the same condition. It has already been explained that when sales tax is attracted in the case of a sale to an ordinary consumer of steel then no purchase tax is attracted and on the other hand when steel is sold to a manufacturer no sales tax is attracted but what is leviable is purchase tax. So in the three instances relied upon they do not go together and make out two stages or three stages of sale or purchase tax or both taxes on the same commodity in the same condition. This argument to my mind is not properly conceived. There is no other argument that has been urged in support of these petitions. The result is that all these petitions are dismissed but in all the petitions a consolidated amount of Rs. 250 is allowed as costs to the respondents, the petitioners among themselves sharing this amount equally. GROVER, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 84
... ...
... ... ..... they are pure questions of fact. The respondents deny these facts and evidently the same must be proved before the assessing authorities who are competent to record evidence on the same. The petitioners should, in the circumstances, seek their ordinary remedies before the assessing authorities and then before the appellate and revisional authorities. They can bring their case to this Court on a reference by the revisional authority if they establish a case for such a reference. In any case, there does not seem to be any justification for the petitioners rushing to this Court for extraordinary remedies when ordinary remedies are open to them and they are in a position to avail of the same. After the ordinary remedies have been exhausted, the petitioners may, if they are so advised and if they are legally entitled to do so, invoke the extraordinary remedies provided by Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has no merits and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 83
... ...
... ... ..... ouchers relating to the business of any year for at least 3 years thereafter. Thus, the intention of the Legislature seems to be clear that the books of accounts are to be maintained on annual basis. Section 15 of the Act directs a dealer to maintain correct and complete accounts. Therein, of course it does not specify the period for which accounts are to be maintained. But the State Government have been empowered to make rules in that behalf and accordingly the above rule 26-A was framed by the State Government. It is fairly clear that the intention is that the books of account are to be maintined on annual basis. That being so, there is no substance in the argument as advanced by Mr. Das. In the result the question No. (1) is answered in the negative whereas questions Nos. (2) and (3) are answered in the affirmative. In view of our answers, the assessee must pay the cost of the Commissioner which is assessed at Rs. 100. R.K. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1961 (3) TMI 82
... ...
... ... ..... scribed, but it is certainly a relevant factor to be taken into account. It is only in cases where the fundamental right of a citizen is violated by a glaringly and manifestly illegal act that the Court may choose to exercise its discretion in defence of such a fundamental right, any efficacious alternative remedy notwithstanding. But in the present case, the State being the petitioner such a consideration can hardly arise. The objection on the score of undue delay and laches is also not unsubstantial and in the absence of any valid and cogent explanation, this Court would be disinclined to exercise its discretionary power. In view of our decision that this petition is going to fail on account of the existence of an alternative remedy and unexplained delay and laches, it is unnecessary to express any considered opinion on the question, which induced me to refer this case to a larger Bench. The respondent is entitled to have his costs of these proceedings. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 81
... ...
... ... ..... be entitled to the exemption from Bihar sales tax by virtue of the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution and it would be not necessary for the assessee to prove further that the goods so delivered were actually consumed in the State of first destination. Having regard to this view of the law, it is abundantly clear from the record that the goods were delivered to the outside States for purposes of consumption. It is, however, not necessary to prove that the goods were actually consumed in those States. Thus, the view taken by the first appellate court is clearly wrong in law. The Tribunal has not applied his mind to this aspect of the question. The result is that the consideration of the question referred to this Court seems to me merely academic in view of the above position in law. 4.. Accordingly, we refuse to answer the question as stated to us. The reference is discharged, but there would be no order for costs. R.K. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference discharged.
-
1961 (3) TMI 80
... ...
... ... ..... t the order in a particular aspect of the case passed by the first appellate authority is illegal. I have no doubt in my mind that in view of the provisions, as discussed above, the Tribunal had the power to dispose of the case on its merits even in the absence of a cross-objection on behalf of the State Government To dispose of the case on its merits means to pass such orders which ought to be passed and which the case may require, so that there may be full and complete adjudication of the disputes between the parties. 5.. Mr. R.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, did not dispute this position in law. Accordingly we would answer the question in the negative. However, it is open to the Tribunal now to exercise its powers in accordance with law as stated above, keeping in view the circumstances of the case. 6.. The reference is thus answered in the negative. There will be no order f or costs. R.K. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1961 (3) TMI 79
... ...
... ... ..... n 13 of the Act. 4.. Thus, while answering question No. 1 in the affirmative, I would like to add that it must be subject to certain conditions. If the transferor-registered-dealer had filed a return and no assessment had been made, even then the transferee-dealer is liable to pay the admitted tax as in Form No. IV. If, on the other hand, no return had been filed by the registered dealer, the transferee-dealer is not liable to make payment without the transferor-dealer being assessed. 5.. With regard to question No. 2 our answer must also be in the affirmative. But their also we want to make it clear that the assessment must be made under sub-section (5) of section 12 and not under sub-section (4) of the same section, because sub-section (4) clearly deals with registered dealers whereas sub-section (5) deals with unregistered dealers. With these observations, we accept the reference, but there would be no order for costs. R.K. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1961 (3) TMI 78
... ...
... ... ..... ach additional place of business the gross turnover should exceed the prescribed limit either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. Sub-section (5) was introduced by the Amending Act of 1951 and came into force on 26th November, 1951. This sub-section was introduced for more than one purpose, including the liability to pay tax for any additional place of business. But even in the absence of sub-section (5) a dealer who has become liable to pay tax by virtue of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 4, continues to be so under sub-section (3). This, it appears, has been overlooked by the Tribunal, and accordingly the order of the Tribunal under subsection (3) of section 23 has proceeded on a wrong basis. In the result, we accept the reference and answer the question in the negative. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee, there would be no order for costs in this Court. R.K. DAS, J-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1961 (3) TMI 77
Method of accounting – Valuation of stock – Method of valuation for regular employment by assessee and not merely for year in question – Held, yes –Whether mere fact that option to value his closing stock either at cost price or market price exercised by assessee is detrimental to revenue can never be basis for denying him that option
-
1961 (3) TMI 76
Whether the restraint caused by the law was more than was necessary in the interests of the general public?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The ratio of Narendra Kumar's case [1959 (12) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT] applies fully to the present case and the pro- vision contained in sub-section (6) of section 4 is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
-
1961 (3) TMI 72
Whether the Validation Act applies to the transactions in question?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Unable to accept as correct the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee. In our view, the Validation Act applies and the assessment on the transactions in question cannot now be challenged on the ground alleged by the assessee.
-
1961 (3) TMI 63
Whether by way of sales tax or otherwise and the period of limitation provided in the proviso to section 14 shall apply to the aforesaid claims?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. When under the orders of assessment they paid amounts to the State, requirements of section 9B were complied with and the amount remained with the State in deposit, subject to the obligation, if a demand was made within the period prescribed, to restore the same to the persons from whom the assessees had recovered it. We do not think that there is any reason to hold that the assessees would be exposed to any enforceable claims at the instance of the purchasers to refund the tax collected by them if they have deposited it with the State in discharge of the statutory obligation incurred by them.
-
1961 (3) TMI 61
Whether betel leaves are vegetables and are therefore exempt from taxation under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As said above betel leaves are not within the word "vegetables" and are therefore taxable. There is no discrimination between persons similarly placed. By making a distinction between persons selling betel leaves and those selling vegetables no infringement of Article 14 is established. As it is a valid fee it cannot be said that it is an infringement of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
-
1961 (3) TMI 59
Whether there was violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. When the petitioners were heard by the Chief Commissioner in support of their application in revision, they made no grievance on the score that the Commissioner of Sales Tax had not given them a second opportunity of a fresh oral hearing. We do not think that a second opportunity like the one suggested on behalf of the petitioners was either necessary or obligatory. The petitioners had an opportunity of saying what they had to say against the demand of security. They raised their objections which were considered by the Commissioner who, in spite of these objections, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to ask the petitioners to furnish security for the proper realisation of the tax levied or leviable under the Act. We agree with the chief Commissioner that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case.
-
1961 (3) TMI 55
Imposition of sales tax on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola challenged - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Apart from the fact that the legislature by using two distinct and different items, i.e. item No. 6 "vegetables" and item No. 36 "betel leaves", has indicated its intention, decided cases also show that the word "vegetables" in taxing statutes is to be understood as in common parlance, i.e. denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table. Thus betel leaves are not exempt from taxation.
-
1961 (3) TMI 41
Whether the purchase of goods made by petioner inside the State but sold to dealers outside the State be included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. A purchase made inside a State, for sale outside the State cannot itself be held to be in the course of inter-State trade, and the imposition of a tax thereon is not repugnant to Article 286(2) of the Constitution
-
1961 (3) TMI 31
Meeting and proceedings – Restriction on exercise of voting rights of members who have not paid calls, Etc., Ordinary and special resolutions, Oppression and Mismanagement
|
