|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 92 Records
-
1962 (4) TMI 81
... ...
... ... ..... The Assistant Commissioner rightly took no notice of this complaint. Again, the submission which the representative wanted to make was no other than that the petitioner having been assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Raigarh, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to assess him. This is evident from annexure 10 to the petition. That objection, as already pointed out by us, is devoid of any merit. In these circumstances, there is no foundation whatsoever for the contention that the assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner was capricious and without exercise of any judgment in the matter or that it was made contrary to the principles of natural justice of giving a fair hearing to the petitioner. 9.. For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that this petition must be and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 200. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any, after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 80
... ...
... ... ..... om this proviso that while the Commissioner can delegate his power to impose a penalty. he has no authority to delegate the power to give approval to the penalty. In the instant case the approval was only given by the Assistant Commissioner and not by the Commissioner. In our opinion, that was contrary to the provisions of section 16. That is also the view which a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, Kotval. J., was a party) took in Special Civil Application No. 60 of 1961 decided on 27th October, 1961 . In that view, the penalties imposed in these cases which are impugned in these two special civil applications must be held to be bad and must be set aside. In the result, therefore, we partly allow the petition to the extent that the penalties imposed on the petitioner are set aside. The rest of the orders of the authorities below are held to be correct and to that extent the petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 79
... ...
... ... ..... iew that sub-rule (1) of rule 11 may not apply to an assessee like the revision petitioner. We express no opinion as to whether sub-rule (1) of rule 11 would apply or not to the revision petitioner or an assessee similarly placed. But as we have said, we are of the opinion that in the circumstances mentioned the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce C Forms which conform to the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 11. 5.. We, therefore, answer question E raised in the revision memo in the negative and in favour of the assessee and question F in the affirmative and also in favour of the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to take back appeal No. 413 of 1961 in its file. The Tribunal will scrutinise the C Forms that have now been produced and accept them if they are in order and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. We make no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1962 (4) TMI 78
... ...
... ... ..... of the applicant also, in our opinion, should fail. Before parting with the case. it may be stated that Mr. Ganatra requested that we should call for a further statement from the Tribunal on the question whether import duty had been paid by the Scindia Steam Navigation Company. It is his argument that if no import duty had been paid by the Scindia Steam Navigation Company, then it could not be said that the ship was in territorial waters. Consequently, the sale of the ship even though in the Bombay docks, would not be a sale of the ship within the State of Bombay. The question does not appear to have been raised before the Tribunal, and it therefore does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal, and we do not think it necessary to ask for a further statement of the case on this question. In the result, our answer to all the questions would be in the affirmative. The applicant to pay the costs of the respondent, quantified at Rs. 500. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1962 (4) TMI 77
... ...
... ... ..... them within the City of Madras, and that the sculptor shall arrange for the transport of the statue from his studio to the place of installation and have it fixed over the pedestal both done at Government expense would suggest that the transactions amounted to sales. I am unable to accept the contention. Whether the transactions amounted to sales within the definition of the Act would have to be decided with reference to the terms in which a dealer has been defined and a sale has been defined by the Act. The primary element which, as I said, is lacking is the trade or commerce aspect in the transactions. In the view I have taken on the question whether the petitioner is a dealer and whether the transactions amounted to taxable sales, it is unnecessary to consider the other point urged for the petitioner, namely, that in any case, the contracts in effect were no more than works contracts. The petition is allowed and the rule nisi is made absolute. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 76
... ...
... ... ..... eneral Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, which were the counterpart of rule 6(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. But we are unable really to appreciate, because when an article is returned by the hirer under the hire-purchase agreement by reason of default in the payment of the balance of sale price, there is no refund of sale price as such in respect of that return of those goods. It is unconvincing that such a situation is also contemplated under rule 5(1)(b). But in the view we have taken of the interpretation of the rule and the inability of Courts to extend the meaning of the words beyond the meaning which the language of the rule conveys or the inability of Courts to import any new or further words, or to work out the intendment of that rule beyond the language, we consider that we need not further discuss this decision. From the above, it follows that this petition should be dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 75
... ...
... ... ..... appear that the Electricity Board there was under a statutory obligation to conduct a canteen on a non-profit basis. On the facts of that case, Jagadisan and Srinivasan, JJ., were of the opinion that inasmuch as it was not impossible for the canteen to effect sales to persons other than workmen the canteen should be held to be a dealer. This case, in my opinion, is of no assistance to the respondent. As I said, in the present case, the provision requiring running of a canteen and the relevant rules make it beyond doubt that the canteen is run on an entirely non-profit motive for the benefit of only the workmen in the particular factory with the result neither the canteen can be said to be a dealer nor the sales to be sales within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, so as to attract sales tax. On this view the provisional assessment is quashed, the petitions are allowed and the rules nisi made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 74
... ...
... ... ..... provision, in our view, really presents no complicated questions of construction. The word sale is of sufficient amplitude to take within its ambit the concept of purchase also. As was pointed out by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Syed Mohamed and Co. v. The State of Madras(1), the words sales tax are generally understood as importing a tax on the occasion of sale, that it is immaterial whether it is collected in the first instance from the sellers or the purchasers. The learned Judges pointed out that it is in this sense that the words tax on sales would appear to have been used in Entry No. 48. We may also say that section 8(2) does not provide for the incidence of tax. It provides only the rate at which tax is to be levied on transactions involving inter-State elements. For the above reasons we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. This revision case must, therefore, fail and is dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 73
... ...
... ... ..... r section 12(5) of the Act. 11.. The challenge to the reassessment under section 19 on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make it must, therefore, fail. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider the cases which the learned counsel for the petitioner cited to support the contention that the applicant was entitled as of right to the issue of a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition. The merits of the best judgment assessment cannot be considered in these proceedings. An assessment under section 19 is appealable under section 38 and the petitioner should have canvassed the merits of the assessment by filing an appeal before the competent authority. 12.. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs. The applicant shall pay the costs of the opponents. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 200. The outstanding amount of security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 72
... ...
... ... ..... he present case, and having regard to the language of the entry and the meaning of the various words used therein, we do not think that there can be any doubt that the entry as it stood at the material time would only include raw cotton, that is, cotton in its natural or nearly natural form in the ginned or unginned state, and not cotton which had been converted into specific different products after being subjected to various processes. In our opinion, therefore, our answer to the question in the form in which we have reframed it is that the goods known as absorbent cotton wool, which the respondents have sold during the material period, do not fall within item No. 1 of Schedule B of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as amended by Bombay Act 10 of 1954, and they therefore are liable to be taxed under the residuary entry covered by item No. 80 of the said Schedule. The petitioner shall get their costs from the respondents, quantified at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (4) TMI 71
... ...
... ... ..... ee. There are some who purchased ghee itself and sold it to the petitioners. That being the case, the facts require to be investigated as to what proportion of the assessee s purchase turnover was from dealers who paid tax on butter. All these have not yet been enquired into by the assessing authority. This Court is ill-suited for, and cannot enter into, an investigation of disputed questions of fact in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. There is thus no error of law, much less of jurisdiction, justifying the issue of a writ. Further, the Act provides adequate and effective alternative remedies to the petitioner in the event of the provisions of section 5(5) of the Act being ignored by the assessing authority, and they have not been availed of by the petitioners. In this view, the petition is premature. For all these reasons, the petition fails. The rule nisi is discharged, and the petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 70
... ...
... ... ..... In such a contingency, a person cannot possess stock-in-trade, though he intends to carry on his business. Assuming that a business could exist without it having any stock-in-trade, at a given point of time, in our view, that would not be a normal state of affairs. On the other hand, the normal state of affairs of a business that is having a goodwill would be a business having stock-in-trade and which is a running business. In our opinion, therefore, the mere fact that a person doing business has sold the goodwill of his business and the right in trade marks would by itself be not sufficient to hold that the entire business of the trader has been transferred to the person to whom goodwill and right to use the trade marks has been transferred. In the result, therefore, the question referred to us will be answered in the negative. The respondent shall pay the costs of the applicant. Deposits made by the applicant, if any, be refunded to him. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1962 (4) TMI 69
... ...
... ... ..... urchased goods from outside the State which are amongst the specified items notified by the Government and which goods, as a direct result of the purchase, have been delivered in the State of Bombay for consumption therein. Section 10(a), on the other hand. relates only to the tax payable by registered dealers liable to pay tax on their purchases and not any buyers as under section 10C. The argument, therefore, that section 10C would be rendered redundant if section 10(a) were interpreted in the manner in which the Sales Tax Authorities and the Tribunal have done is not correct. In our opinion, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal regarding the application of the provisions of section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. to the purchases in question is also right and our answer to the second question, therefore, must be in the affirmative. We answer accordingly. The petitioners will pay the costs of the respondent quantified at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (4) TMI 68
... ...
... ... ..... all inasmuch as the transfer by the Sunways (India) Private Limited in favour of the transferee was not of the entire business, but was only of a part of the business. This contention is purely one of fact, and it had not been raised at any time before any of the Sales Tax Authorities or the Tribunal. It cannot, therefore, be said that it arises out of an order of the Tribunal. We have therefore not allowed Mr. Ganatra to advance any argument in support of this contention. For the reasons stated above, the answer to the question referred to us will be in the negative so far as the period 1st January, 1953 to 31st March, 1953, is concerned, and in the affirmative so far as the periods 1st April, 1953 to 25th November, 1953, 26th November, 1953 to 31st March, 1954, 1st April, 1954 to 6th May, 1954, and 7th May, 1954 to 1st June, 1954, are concerned. The respondent shall pay the costs of the applicant, only one set of costs quantified at Rs. 500. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (4) TMI 67
... ...
... ... ..... not sold within the State of Bombay. On the other hand, in our view, proviso (a) comes into play when the dealer commits a breach of either of these said two conditions or both the said two conditions, while proviso (b) may come into play when there is no breach of the said two conditions, and yet no general tax is actually payable by a purchasing dealer on any sale made by him of the articles in the manufacture of which such goods have been used, for instance, the turnover of the said purchasing dealer not exceeding the specified limit. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us would be that the words such manufacture occurring in the proviso (a) to rule 5(1) (vii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1952, mean manufactured for sale within the meaning of the term sale as defined in section 2(14) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, i.e., sale within the State of Bombay . The respondents shall pay the costs of the applicant in one set. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (4) TMI 66
... ...
... ... ..... however in the present case to enter into that question because even if the fiction created by section 11(5) were to clothe the dealer with the status of a registered dealer from the very commencement of the period, it would not extend to giving him the benefits to which a registered dealer would not be entitled unless he had complied with the requirements or rule 11(4). In our opinion, therefore, even if it were assumed that the fiction created by section 11(5) would extend from the very commencement, i.e., from 1st April, 1954, it would still not entitle the opponents to obtain a set-off since they had admittedly not complied with subrule (4) of rule 11. In the view that we are taking, it is not necessary to go into question No. 1 referred to us by the Tribunal. We therefore do not answer question No. 1 as being unnecessary to be answered. Our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative. The opponents will pay the costs of the Collector of Sales Tax. answered accordingly.
-
1962 (4) TMI 65
Whether the name ’Lakshmandhara’ was likely to deceive the public or cause confusion to trade within the meaning of s. 8 and s. 10 (1) of the Act?
Whether there was such acquiescence on behalf of the appellant in the use of the name ’Lakshmandhara’ in the. State of Uttar Pradesh as to bring it within the, expression ’special circumstances’ mentioned in sub-s. 10 of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. There was any fraudulent user by the respondent of his trade name ’Lakshmandbara’. The name was first used in 1923 in a small way in Uttar Pradesh. Later it was more extensively used and in the same journals the two trade marks were publicised. The finding of the Registrar is that the appellant and its agent were well aware of the advertisements of the respondent, and the appellant stood by and allowed the respondent to develop his business till it grew from a small beginning in 1923 to an annual turnover of Rs. 43,000/- in 1946. These circumstances establish the plea of acquiescence and bring the case within sub-s. (2) of s. 10, and in view of the admission made on behalf of the respondent ’that his goods were sold mainly in Uttar Pradesh, the Registrar was right in imposing the limitation which he imposed.
-
1962 (4) TMI 64
Whether the appellant comes within section 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and is liable to tax as a dealer?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Sub-section (2) of section 14-A was said to be connected with the opening part, and it was argued that the tax was leviable on the turn-over relating to the business of a non-resident, which was carried on by the non-resident in the taxable territory. In our opinion, once the finding is given that the non-resident principal carried on the business of selling in Andhra Pradesh and the appellant was the admitted agent through whom this business was carried on, the rest follows without any difficulty. The High Court, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in upholding the levy of the tax from the appellant, in view of our decision that the appellant came within the four corners of section 14-A in relation to the transactions disclosed in the last category.
-
1962 (4) TMI 57
SCOPE OF ARTICLE 14, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - IMPOSITION OF TAX ON SALE OF VIRGINIA TOBACCO AND EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON SALE OF COUNTRY TOBACCO
-
1962 (4) TMI 53
Whether the transactions to whose details we shall presently refer, which the respondent admittedly entered into, were or were not "sales of goods" within the Madras General Sales Tax Act (Act IX of 1939) so as to enable the turnover represented by these sales to be brought to tax under the Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. No doubt, if on the facts there was no delivery of the goods to the last holder of the delivery order, the entire fabric on which the case for the appellant rests would disappear. There is however no factual basis for this submission. This fact was not alleged by the respondent at any stage of the proceedings starting from the plaint in the Court of the District Munsif right up to the statement of the case in this Court and besides, all the Courts have proceeded on the basis that such delivery was effected to the last endorsee of the delivery order but they held that such delivery did not become a sale by the respondent so as to attract the liability to tax under section 3 of the Act. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting this argument.
|
