|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 90 Records
-
1971 (1) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the entire cause of action had arisen at Varanasi and the parties could not by agreement confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Bombay, which they did not otherwise possess?
Held that:- Since an application for filing an award in respect of a dispute arising out of the terms of the agreement could be filed in the Courts in the City of Bombay, both because of the terms of cl. 13 of the, agreement and because the respondents had their Head Office where they carry on business at Bombay, the agreement between the parties that the Courts in Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction to try the proceeding relating to arbitration was binding between them. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT
Whether President himself did not determine the question relating to the age of the respondent because he surrendered his judgment to the Chief Justice of India or that he was persuaded to reach his conclusion only because the Home Minister and the Prime Minister had countersigned the notation made by the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. We do not think that the President had heard any evidence or received any representation from one side behind the back of the other. If he had done so the question whether any representation was made which worked to the prejudice of the respondent would arise. The Court will not then consider the question whether the representation had in fact worked to his prejudice. A reasonable possibility may be sufficient. In the present case no evidence was placed before the President or considered by him which was not disclosed to the respondent.
This Court will not sit in appeal over the judgment of the President, nor will the, Courts determine the weight which should be attached to the evidence. Appreciation of evidence is entirely left to the President and it is not for the Courts to hold that on the evidence placed before the President on which the conclusion is founded, if they were called upon to decide the case they would have reached some other conclusion.
-
1971 (1) TMI 107 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r that the assessing authority was able to find any incriminating material, which connected the petitioner with the clandestine transactions. When there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner was clandestinely purchasing paddy and when there is a categorical finding to that effect by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner, any further enquiry to fish some information against the petitioner would only result in harassment of the petitioner. The assessing authority was unable to connect the entries found in the note book seized from Mallikarjuna Raju with the alleged clandestine transactions of the petitioner s mill. In the circumstances, we do not feel that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in remitting the matter for disposal afresh to the assessing authority. In the result, the order under revision in so far as it relates to remand is set aside and the revision is allowed, but, in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ases on the value of rupees ten lacs and odd may possibly be found justified on other grounds. In these circumstances we have permitted the petitioners on their oral request to implead forthwith the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Kanpur, as opposite party No. 3, learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties having no objection to the same. The learned counsel has also stated that he does not require any time for any counter-affidavit being filed on behalf of the newly impleaded opposite party and has agreed to the decision of the writ petition forthwith. In the above circumstances we allow the writ petition to this extent that we direct opposite party No. 3 to deal with the question of assessment of purchase tax on the purchases of the said value of Rs. 10,79,659.94 on the basis that the proviso in clause (d) of rule 44-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules is invalid and inoperative. We direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 105 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... asers as a result of which some of the consumers may be deprived altogether. 11.. Thus, though the freedom of contract was seriously restricted by the Collector within the sphere of trade or business allowed by the control order, the ordinary law relating to contract for sale of goods did not stand wholly abrogated. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no escape from the conclusion that in a very wide sphere the contracting parties were left with the volition to determine their jural relationship. The transaction therefore constituted a sale and sales tax was rightly imposed. Similar views have been taken in Bangaru Rama Rao and Bros. v. Tadavarthi Punnayya and Bros.(1958) 2 An. W.R. 671. and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Jiwan Das 1966 18 S.T.C. 264., which were decided prior to the Supreme Court decisions. 12.. In the result, the writ application fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. A. MISRA, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 104 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it was held that any amendment of an impugned statute could have the effect of curing the invalidity of a provision of that statute even though the said provision was not the subject-matter of the amendment at all. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and it is declared that the purported modification of section 6(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, by the Government of India Notification No. S.R.O. 3908 dated 7th December, 1957, was ineffective and section 6(2) continues to be the same as before as if it was not so modified at all. Consequently, the Government of India s Notifications No. G.S.R. 964 dated 16th June, 1966, and G.S.R. 1061 dated 29th June, 1966, are quashed because they were not in compliance with the provisions of section 6(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. There shall be no order as to costs. This decision shall also dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 575-D, 669-D, 670-D, 671-D, 672-D, 673-D and 674-D of 1966. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 103 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... again repeat that it has not been denied by the respondents that the only use made of the guar meal or the guar giri, produced by the petitioners, which is sought to be taxed, is as fodder for the cattle or animals. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the substance being produced by the petitioners, which is sought to be subjected to sales tax by the respondents, is fodder and exempt from the payment of sales tax under item 54 of Schedule B to the Act. Fodder has been held to mean feed for the cattle or animals in which category the product of the petitioners squarely falls. For the reasons given above, these petitions are accepted and the impugned orders of assessment are quashed. The respondents are further directed to refund the sales tax, if any, recovered from the petitioners on the turnover relating to the sale of guar meal or guar giri by them. Since there was a conflict of views in the department, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 102 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... can. This is the requirement of the principles of natural justice and before a party is burdened with any amount of tax a fair opportunity has to be afforded to him to dispel the doubts or the information that has been gathered at his back. The Assessing Authority evidently ignored these basic principles although they have been reiterated from time to time by all the courts. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Assessing Authority passed on 2nd November, 1966, a copy of which is annexure A to the writ petition, deserves to be quashed. For the reasons given above, I accept this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Assessing Authority dated 2nd November, 1966, a copy of which is annexure A to the writ petition. It will be open to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with the provisions of law. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 101 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... edy of appeal, no interference should be made under article 226. An appeal under the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act can be filed only on payment of tax. The existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for interference it is only a factor to be taken into account in exercising discretion under article 226. In our opinion, when the facts are admitted and the tax amount is heavy, it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse interference on the ground that the petitioner could have gone up in appeal. 10.. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. The assessment orders against the petitioner in so far as they relate to disallowance of exemption claimed under article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution are quashed and the respondents are directed not to recover any tax in respect of turnover of outside sales. There shall be no order as to costs of these petitions. The amount of security deposits shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petitions Partly allowed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT
Whether under the Bihar Sales Tax Act the tax could be recovered from the appellant?
Held that:- Appeal allowed.The High Court did not hold an investigation in the present case whether the appellant was a transferee to whom the ownership of the entire business of the Hindu undivided family which was assessed to tax was entirely transferred. In the absence of such a finding, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
-
1971 (1) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of two notifications No. ST-909/X dated March 31, 1956 and No. ST-6069/X-1097-56 dated September 30, 1956 issued by the Government of U.P challenged
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It may be noted that the appellant has been assessed on the basis of Notification No. ST-6069/X-1097-56 dated September 30, 1956. In other words, sales tax has been levied on him at 3 pies per rupee and not 6 pies per rupee as prescribed in Notification No. 909/X dated March 31, 1956. In the circum- stances of the case the counsel for the Government has agreed that the Government will not proceed to reopen the assessment and assess on the basis of Notification No. 909/X dated March 31, 1956.
-
1971 (1) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Notification No. 976 issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 which was to come into force on April 1, 1959 questioned - Held that:- Appeals are allowed and the decision of the High Court is hereby reversed as the notification in question was stated to come into force on April 1, 1959. Besides, it was published on that very day. Therefore, in terms of clause (b) it came into force only on April 1, 1959, and not earlier. No one has challenged nor indeed it can be disputed that on April 1, 1959, a valid notification could be issued under section 17 of the Act. For this reason alone the validity of the notification must be upheld.
-
1971 (1) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the last purchase liable to tax within the State contemplated by section 5(3) of the Act was the purchase by the appellant from the mine-owners or the purchase by the STC from the appellant?
Whether the property passed to the State Trading Corporation pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties within the State of Mysore?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed except with regard to the tax which was levied on the sale of tyres and tubes which will not now be payable by the assessee. The High Court has enumerated with care all the material conditions which were to be found in the contracts as also the manner in which the transportation of the goods took place apart from the payment of price and the arrangement about obtaining of advances by the assessee by hypothecation of goods. We are unable to find any infirmity in the approach and reasoning of the High Court on the question of passing of property in the goods in the light of the presumption which arises in the case of f.o.b. contracts. We would accordingly affirm the conclusion of the High Court that the assessee was the last purchaser of the iron ore within the State and was thus liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
-
1971 (1) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents were entitled to the exemption claimed by them?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The questions in dispute were whether there was a sale, and if so, whether the sale was exempt from liability to pay tax. Without deciding whether there was a sale by the respondent to the Government of India or to the Government of Pakistan, it is sufficient for the purpose of this case to observe that the sale if any was by virtue of section 5(2)(a)(v) exempt from liability to sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, for it was a sale in the course of export. No argument was advanced before us which would justify us in taking a different view.
-
1971 (1) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Meeting and Proceedings – Length of notice for calling meeting ... ... ... ... ..... erlying these decisions is that it is open to the shareholders to give their consent subsequent to the meeting. The object underlying the requirement of giving a particular period of notice is to enable the shareholders to consider the proposal, to discuss among themselves and to canvass for proxies if they so desire. It is open to them to waive the notice, if, in their opinion, the resolution, though it was passed without satisfying the length of notice, is for the benefit of the company. The only requirement is that the shareholders should give their consent with full knowledge of the implications of the resolution. In the instant case, consent letters have been given by all the shareholders except one, whose whereabouts are said to be not known. I am satisfied that the said consent is sufficient to validate the resolution. In this view, I confirm the reduction of the share capital. Advertise this in one issue of the Mail, the Swadesamitran and the Fort St. George Gazette.
-
1971 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sheets imported were not according to the conditions of the licence because they did not comply with the condition as to the size and gauge subject?
Held that:- there was no proper investigation of the dispute by the Collector of Customs and the Central Board of Excise and Customs. We are also of the view that in view of the infirmities disclosed in the orders made by the departmental authorities the Central Government in revision should have proceeded to consider the merits of the appeals relating to the six consignments in respect of which fine was not remitted in full. The Government should have given to the appellants adequate opportunity to prove that there had been no substantial deviation from the terms of the licence or for other reasons on which they claimed that the fine may be remitted in full.
set aside the order passed by the Central Government in respect of the six orders passed by the Collector, where fine has not been remitted in its entirety and direct that the Central Government do consider the revision applications on their merit.
-
1971 (1) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE AT BANGALORE
Paper - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s of Respondents 2 to 4 impugned in this writ petition viz., Annexures B, C and D and direct the second respondent to make a fresh adjudication in the light of this decision. 24. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the demands as per Exhibits A, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4. The said demands are subject to the adjudication to be made by the second respondent as per our direction. If the demands are quashed there may be difficulty of issuing fresh demands. 25. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 51,788.28 as per demands Exhibits A, A-1 and A-2. In respect of the demands Exhibits A-3 and A-4 for Rs. 1,07,422.80, the petitioner has furnished security. Since the prior decision is in favour of the petitioner, the recovery of the amounts as per the demands made under Exhibits A-3 and A-4 shall be kept in abeyance until proper adjudication is made by the second respondent in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 26. In the circumstance, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1971 (1) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
Civil Court's jurisdiction in Excise & Customs matters — Writ jurisdiction — Motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition
-
1971 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of the first respondent, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified?
Held that:- No doubt, the rejection of the appeal by the first respondent will mean that the appellant is bound by the order of the third respondent levying penalty. Such a result has been brought about only by the default of the appellant in complying with the order of the first respondent to deposit half the amount of penalty. Therefore, it follows that the rejection of the appeal by the first respondent was legal and the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition is valid. Appeal dismissed.
-
1971 (1) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Chairs fixed or screwed to buses ... ... ... ... ..... amount to furniture or not and not with regard to a possible use which may be made of these seats when removed from the bus. It has to be borne in mind that the seats fixed in the buses are not meant for .being removed and used elsewhere. They are meant to be used in the body of the bus itself for providing seating accommodation to the persons travelling in the bus. The notification dated April, 30, 1968, issued by the Government itself exempting the seats used in automobiles from the payment of duty clearly shows that the Government never intended to levy duty there on. It is curious that the Government only exempted them from duty with effect from April, 30, 1968 and not from March, 1, 1968. 6. For the persons given above, I accept this writ petition and quash the order, copy of which is Annexure E to the writ petition and hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay any duty on the seats manufactured by it for the passenger buses. There is, however, no order as to costs.
|
