|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 70 Records
-
1962 (1) TMI 53
... ...
... ... ..... ld be paid over to the State under section 8-B(2) of the Act. The figures given above unmistakably show that the petitioner had collected amounts from its constituents which were not lawfully payable by way of tax under the Act. If the petitioner had not handed over the amounts so collected to the State the claim under section 8-B(2) cannot be resisted. It follows that the collections having been made over to the State Government, the petitioner will not be entitled to any refund, as it is open to the State to retain the amounts in its hands in view of the provisions of section 8-B(2) of the Act. There is really no substance in the plea urged on behalf of the petitioner that the ingredients of section 8-B(2) are not present to warrant the action taken by the taxing authorities. These writ petitions therefore fail and are dismissed. Rule nisi is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent in W.P. No. 1213 of 1959. Counsel s fee Rs.150. Petitions dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 52
... ...
... ... ..... ion for review enacted under section 12-B(7) of the Act. But it is quite clear that the scope and ambit of the power of review exercisable by this Court to review its orders passed under section 12-B is governed only by section 12-B(7). There is no scope for enlarging such a power for resorting to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. We are of opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for review, and the application (T.C.M.P. No 121 of 1961) therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 110. T.C.M.P. No. 121 of 1961 is an application for stay of further proceedings pending the review application. As the review application has been dismissed, this petition also is dismissed. T.C.M.P. No. 125 of 1961 is an application for rehearing T.C. No. 146 of 1959. There is no provision of law under which this could be done and this application also is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. T.C.M.P. No. 136 of 1961-Dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 51
... ...
... ... ..... hasers in the State. is also not tenable. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sitaram Spinning and Weaving Mills at Trichur are the last purchasers. The Trichur mills are the purchasers in inter-State sales, failing within the explanation to Article 286. The delivery-cum-consumption State is the Kerala State and in relation to the Madras State, it is an outside sale. The situs of the sale having been located by the Constitution as the Kerala State, this State is under a disability to tax such sales. Once the transactions are beyond the purview of the Madras Act, it is inconceivable that the parties to the transactions can be brought in for any measure of tax liability. We hold that the mills are not the last purchasers. The petitioners have failed to establish that they were not the last purchasers. The decision of the Tribunal is correct. The petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 50
... ...
... ... ..... the bills of lading or railway receipts, as the case may be, and paid the money to the assessees. On these facts, it was found by a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party that the transactions partook of inter-State character and consequently they fell within the protection afforded by Article 286 of the Constitution. It is seen from the facts stated therein that the shipping agents acted as agents of the seller and not of the buyer. The mere fact that the forwarding agents raised moneys on the strength of the shipping bills did not make any difference in regard to the character of inter-State sales. That is not a situation here. In this case, as already stated, the commission agents purchased on behalf of their principals residing in other States and they are not the agents of the sellers, Therefore the rule stated in this case has no application here. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 (one hundred only). Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 49
... ...
... ... ..... ct XLI of 1954 in respect of transactions throughout the financial year from 1st April, 1957 to 31st March, 1958. We may also refer to the provisions of the Madras General Clauses Act. Section 8 Where any Act, to which this Chapter applies repeals any other enactment, then the repeal shall not......... (d) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. It is clear that this provision will not permit the assessee to escape the liability incurred under Madras Act XLI of 1954. We are unable to read section 9(2) of Madras Act II of 1958 as in any way derogatory to the provisions of the General Clauses Act. In our opinion, both section 9(2) of Madras Act II of 1958 and section 8 of the Madras General Clauses Act sufficiently keep alive the liability of the assessee to pay the additional tax under the repealed Act. The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 48
... ...
... ... ..... ate which is intended for sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce was exempt from taxation. Now, under the proviso to section 8(1) it appears that the benefit of that exemption is extended to the related inter-State sale transaction. That is why the Legislature is likely to have used the words or purchase after the word sale in the proviso. It is true, that the language used in the proviso could have been happier. The Parliament should have made its intention clear by appropriate words. Economy in words does not always add to clarity, nor words of uncertain import like the words exempt generally make the task of Courts easy. For the reasons mentioned above, we agree with Shri Bhat that no portion of the disputed turnover is liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In the result, this revision petition is allowed with costs and the levy imposed on the petitioner is set aside. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. MIR IQBAL HUSSAIN, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 47
... ...
... ... ..... eration in this revision petition is whether the licence fee imposed on the petitioner is a tax within the meaning of that expression found in section 8 of the Act . The Tribunal below has opined that the licence fee levied on the petitioner under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, as well as under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, is not tax as contemplated in section 8 of the Act . For the reasons mentioned by us in our judgment in C.R.P. No. 1533 of 1960 and C.R.P. No. 635 of 1961, we hold that the view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is not correct. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to that Tribunal for determining the liability of the petitioner on the basis that the licence fee levied on him is tax within the meaning of that expression found in section 8 of the Act . No costs. Cases remitted. Since reported as C.S. Nagaraja Setty and another v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, City Division, Bangalore, and Another 1962 13 S.T.C. 578.
-
1962 (1) TMI 46
... ...
... ... ..... te of about 1/2 per cent. The tax collected is credited to the consolidated fund. The expenses are met from general fund. In these circumstances, the one and the only conclusion possible is that the fee levied on the petitioners under the Mysore Sales Tax Laws was in fact tax as understood in sub-section (2) of section 8. If that be so, we have no doubt that it is so, the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount in excess of the amount that they would have been liable to pay under the State law as licence fee if the disputed transactions had been intra-State transactions. So far as the levy made for the period upto 1st July, 1957, no objection is taken. Therefore the same is upheld. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are set aside and these cases are remitted to the Tribunal for determining the tax in accordance with the directions given above. In this Court, the parties will bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 45
... ...
... ... ..... nformed us that the case had its own complexities and we should do well to examine the various points involved in the case. Then we asked him to take us through the relevant facts and the questions of law involved in the case. He did so. We are obliged to him. We are also obliged to Sri E.S. Venkataramiah, who came to the rescue of the petitioner. At his suggestion we took up for hearing the other cases dealt with in this judgment wherein identical questions of law arose for consideration. But for the fairness of the learned Govern- ment Pleader and the timely assistance given by Sri E.S. Venkata- ramiah, C.R.P. No. 864 of 1959 would have been dismissed. Hence there is no justification in awarding any costs to the petitioner therein. In the result, the orders of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are set aside and these cases will be remitted to that Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the above findings and directions. MIR IQBAL HUSAIN, J.-I agree. Cases remitted.
-
1962 (1) TMI 44
... ...
... ... ..... plication must be partly allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued commanding respondent No. 3, namely, the Additional Superintendent of Sales Tax, Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, to specify the following goods in the certificate of registration under section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, read with rule 13 (1) Locomotives and motor vehicles actually used in carrying and removing raw materials during the process of manufacture (2) Locomotives and motor vehicles used both underground and on surface during mining operations (3) Accessories and spare parts for such locomotives and such motor vehicles (4) Tyres and tubes for such motor vehicles (5) Laboratory fittings used for the sampling and analysis of the ores and other raw materials in the initial stages of mining operation and in the process of manufacture. I would accordingly allow the application to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs. UNTWALIA, J.-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 43
... ...
... ... ..... rvations of their Lordships clearly indicate as to how the rule has to be interpreted. We have no doubt in our mind that under rule 2(1)(g) (in Schedule II) of the Rules framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, the petitioner is entitled to deduct the freight charges. Now, coming to the next contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to deduct the royalty paid by him, there is no substance in the same. Clause (i) of rule 2(1) refers to excise duty paid to the Central Government. In the first place, the royalty paid cannot be considered as excise duty. Excise duty is a term of law having its own legal import. Further, the royalty has not been admittedly paid to the Central Government. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any deduction under clause (i) of rule 2(1). In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the case sent back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for determining the tax due in the light of the findings given by us. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 42
... ...
... ... ..... t part of the section relates to all taxation, multi-point as well as single point, whereas the latter part of the section relates only to single point transaction. We do not propose to pronounce on that point. But if the Legislature used different language at different places and that in the same section then it must ordinarily be held that it was dealing with different items. Suffice it to say, we are not in a position to say that the latter part of section 7 as it stood completely nullified the effect of section 5(3)(b). In that view we are unable to read the word purchase as an unwritten word in the latter part of section 7. For the reasons mentioned above, we think that the view of the authorities below that the impugned transactions were liable to be taxed cannot be upheld. We, accordingly, allow the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below. The respondent shall pay the costs of the petitioner. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 41
... ...
... ... ..... f the Court-fees Act are obviously not applicable. There is no provision in the Sales Tax Act enabling the assessee to obtain a refund of the fee paid. Nor is there a provision under the Sales Tax Act stating that any fee paid shall not be refunded. But it is possible to infer that an assessee is bound to pay the prescribed fee only in a case where he intends to prosecute the matter seeking the revisional aid of this Court. It is open to him to change his mind after presenting the revision petition and withdraw the petition before it is actually taken on file. This Court can in the exercise of its inherent powers direct a refund of the fee, where the revision petition is sought to be withdrawn before it takes effect by being taken on file and numbered. On the facts and circumstances of this case we are of opinion that the petitioner can be granted a certificate for refund in respect of the court fee paid. We therefore grant the certificate as prayed for. Ordered accordingly.
-
1962 (1) TMI 40
... ...
... ... ..... ural implement has not been defined in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, nor in the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, we have to take the ordinary meaning of the words agricultural implement into consideration. It is not denied that a crow-bar is generally used as an agricultural implement. The question whether it is predominantly used as such an instrument to our mind appears to be an irrelevant question. The use of the crow-bar for agricultural purposes is by no means a remote use. We are also in agreement with the contention of Mr. Gulur Srinivasarao, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the crow-bar is extensively used as an agricultural implement. That being so, we are in agreement with the conclusions reached by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that crow-bar is an agricultural implement . In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the costs of the respondent. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 39
Whether the transactions in dispute amounted to sales in view of the agreements produced by the applicants?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The terms of clause (1) imposing an obligation upon the assessees to meet the demands of bidis of the merchants in the areas assigned to them further emphasizes that character of the relation between the parties. It is true that by clause (5), for damages or risk to the goods during transit or in the shop of the merchant, the latter is responsible, but that does not alter the true nature of the right in which he holds the goods. It is open to an agent to undertake a liability in respect of goods after they are delivered to him even though the property in goods does not pass to him. Clause (2) providing for giving delivery at the town where the merchant resides has no special significance. The diverse clauses of the agreement, in our judgment, create a relationship of principals and agent and not of vendors and purchaser between the assessees and the merchants to whom the bidis were despatched.
-
1962 (1) TMI 35
Legality of the amendment introduced in section 15 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947) by section 2 of the Assam Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act XIII of 1960) by which sub-section (b) of item (i) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) was deleted and thereby sales of goods to a registered dealer intended for use in production of goods for sale became liable to sales tax challenged
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It has not been shown how the imposition of this tax is an unreason- able restriction on the rights of the petitioner to carry on trade, but it was submitted that by this means the petitioner will not be able to compete with the manufacturers outside the State of Assam. Assuming that this is so, it is clear that goods which are purchased are put to different uses and if the Legislature thinks that certain classes of goods should pay the tax and not others that is a question of policy into which the courts cannot enter.
-
1962 (1) TMI 22
Winding up – Debts of all descriptions to be admitted to proof ... ... ... ... ..... ding up order is made and if retrospective effect is not given to the claim the usefulness of the winding up proceedings would be considerably lost. These aspects of the matter have also been pointed out in Byramji Bomanji Talati v. Official Assignee, Bombay AIR 1936 Bom. 130 ILR 60 Bom. 444 (a case under the Provincial Insolvency Act), and the decision of the Punjab High Court in Ram Chand Puri v. Lahore Enamelling and Stamping Co. 1960 30 Comp. Cas. 515 AIR 1961 Punj. 84. The decision of the High Court is in fact a direct decision on the question which we are considering, and the learned judges took the same view as we are taking, but no reference is made therein to the Explanation to section 3 of the Limitation Act. In the result, we hold that the claim was within time, and since that is the only point which has been raised before us the claim must be admitted. The appeal is allowed, the appellant will get his costs from the company. The respondent will bear his own costs.
-
1962 (1) TMI 13
Whether the sum of ₹ 410 is properly includible in the assessee's total income either in accordance with the provisions of section 16(3)(b) and/or section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?
Whether the sum of ₹ 14,170 is properly includible in the total income of the assessee as the sole beneficiary thereof under the trust settlement made on 1-12-1941 by Dhanji Devsi ?
Held that:- On a true construction of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 16, the view expressed by the High Court was correct and the sum of ₹ 410 did not form part of the total income of the assessee. The High Court correctly answered the first question referred to it.
In respect of the sum of ₹ 14,170 the assessee was a trustee, within the meaning of section 41 of the Income-tax Act, appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing and as such trustee he had the right to contend that his assessment in respect of the money received by him not as a beneficiary but as a trustee could only be made under the first proviso to section 41(1). We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that on the second question also the answer given by the High Court was correct. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 12
whether relying upon clause (5) of section 35 an Income-tax Officer may rectify the assessment of a person who is a partner of a firm when the assessment of the firm is completed before the 1st of April, 1952?
Held that:- Clause (5) of section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, which was enacted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, was not declaratory of pre-existing law, and as it clearly affected vested rights which had accrued to the assessee, must be deemed to have come into force from April 1, 1952. It had no greater retrospective effect than was expressly granted to it. The power to rectify assessment of a partner consequent upon the assessment of the firm of which he is a partner by including or correcting his share of profit or loss can therefore be exercised only in case of assessment of the firm made on or after April 1, 1952. The Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction under clause (5) of section 35 of the Act to rectify the assessment of a partner of a firm consequent upon the assessment or reassessment of the firm disclosing an error made before April 1, 1952. Appeal dismissed.
-
1962 (1) TMI 11
Whether a loss arising from the sale of certain shares by the respondent company was a capital loss?
Held that:- The transaction must be regarded as one on the capital side. Shares were never treated as part of the stock-in-trade. They were not sold in the market, but were sold at a loss to another company belonging to the same group, with the obvious intention of setting off the losses against the profits, thus cancelling the profits, and saving them from taxation. Appeal allowed.
|
