|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 114 Records
-
1972 (9) TMI 124
... ...
... ... ..... n of the penalty was perfectly justified on the consideration mentioned above in the previous paragraph. 6.. In the ultimate view we take, we answer the question by stating that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,000 in addition to the balance of proper sales tax of Rs. 71,376 was justified. We may at this stage clarify the position. What was imposed by way of penalty was the balance of proper sales tax. In this view of the matter, the amount of Rs. 71,376, although called a penalty, was only the balance of the proper sales tax payable by the petitioner-firm. In that view of the matter, penalty of Rs. 5,000, although categorised as extra penalty, was just ordinary penalty imposable under section 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Accordingly, the case shall be sent back to the Tribunal. However, we direct that there shall be no order as to the costs of the present reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (9) TMI 123
... ...
... ... ..... After collecting the information, the administrator should have communicated that information to the appellant-firm and given it an opportunity to show that the material collected was faulty and could not be made the basis of best judgment assessment. It is true that an element of guess-work enters the best judgment assessment but it must be an honest estimate, as has been emphasised by the learned judges in the cases cited above. We have, therefore, no option but to set aside the order of assessment dated 19th January, 1970, and the notice of demand issued in pursuance thereof. For the reasons given above, this appeal is accepted with costs, the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the order of assessment dated 19th January, 1970, and the notice of demand issued in pursuance thereof are quashed. It will be open to the market committee to make fresh assessment in accordance with the law and the observations made above. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Appeal allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 122
... ...
... ... ..... istered dealers other than the Government. Section 8(1) also specifically directs that the concessional rate of tax will be applicable to all inter-State sales made either to Government or to other registered dealers. But section 6(2) restricts the exemption only to inter-State sales made to registered dealers. Whether the Legislature has made the above distinction deliberately between cases of exemption and cases where the concessional rate of tax is levied, is not clear. But we cannot adopt the so-called liberal interpretation of section 6(2) as contended by the learned counsel and extend the scope of exemption in relation to sales made to persons other than registered dealers. As it is, section 6(2) does not allow any exemption in respect of subsequent and second interState sales made to Government departments which are not registered as dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 121
... ...
... ... ..... aid to have been brought from Kerala State to this State by head loads and carts. The transport of such large quantities by head loads and carts is highly improbable, and some vouchers for transport through lorries have been found to be inconsistent with the accounts of the lorry owners. These circumstances are sufficient to draw an inference that the appellants case that they purchased cardamom worth Rs. 12,29,750.08 outside the State cannot be true. Wherever it was found that the goods have been transported from Kerala to Madras by lorries, the assessing authority has given the exemption. But, in respect of the disputed turnover of Rs. 12,29,750.08, no acceptable evidence was forthcoming to sustain the case that the goods involved had been purchased outside the State and transported to Bodi. In our view, the order of the Board of Revenue cannot be successfully challenged on merits. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 120
... ...
... ... ..... or the delay. Under the circumstances, the judge (Revisions) was justified in holding that an oral request for condonation of delay was not enough, and that an application had to be made in writing. The fact that the assessee had, before the Judge (Revisions), made an application for condonation of delay cannot constitute a valid basis for condonation of delay and would, in our opinion, be immaterial and would not enable the Judge (Revisions) to condone the delay in filing the appeal when no such material had been placed on the record at the appellate stage. We would answer question No. (4) in the affirmative. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows Question No. (1) In the negative. Question No. (2)(a) In the affirmative. Question No. (2)(b) In the negative. Question No. (3) In the negative. Question No. (4) In the affirmative. We make no orders as to costs. The fee of the learned counsel for the department is assessed at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (9) TMI 119
... ...
... ... ..... t when selling agents of agriculturistprincipals sell goods to themselves, they cannot be taxed on those sales, in view of the fact that they act as agents of agriculturist-principals whose turnover is exempted under the provisions of the Act. We are of the view that even if such instructions had been issued, that would not prevent the State from enforcing the statutory provisions and collecting the amount due as per statute. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab 1962 13 S.T.C. 180 (S.C.). There can be no estoppel against a statute. If the law requires that a certain tax be collected, it cannot be given up, and any assurance that it would not be collected, would not bind the State Government, whenever it chose to, collect it. We are, therefore, of the view that the liability under the statute cannot be avoided by raising a plea of estoppel. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 118
... ...
... ... ..... ess specifically provided otherwise in the very contract. That decision also is not relevant for the point at issue. There remains the decision of the Mysore High Court in Spencer Co. Ltd. v. State of Mysore(2). Therein a Division Bench had to consider the scope and meaning of the expression amounts collected by way of tax used in rule 6(4)(h) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957. That expression was held to take in all amounts collected in the character of, or as being, tax under the Act. That decision is also not relevant to decide the controversy in the case on hand. For all the reasons stated, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee-petitioner is entitled to the benefits of section 10(1) of the Act as all the ingredients therein have been satisfied. In the result, the revision case is allowed setting aside the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the sales tax authorities. The petitioner be entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 117
... ...
... ... ..... here was no possibility of the goods being diverted by the importer for any other purpose. It is common ground that the petitioner-society placed orders with the foreign seller only after it entered into an agreement with the various allottees and that the agreement between the petitioner-society and the allottees specifically provided that the goods are to be imported from Ceylon and supplied to them as per their requirements on the basis of the bulk licence given in the name of the corporation. We, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioner that even if the petitioner-society can be said to have sold the goods to the allottees, such sales will be sales in the course of import. As we have already held the transactions in question are not taxable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, there is no question of any penalty being imposed. The tax case is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 116
... ...
... ... ..... he definition of tobacco as used in the notification and as such the petitioners and other dealers in biris would not be liable to pay additional sales tax with effect from 1st August, 1972. Thus, it is the admitted position that exemptions have been made from the levy of additional sales tax with regard to the sale of biris from 1st August, 1972. Consequently the petitioners and other dealers in biris will not be liable to pay additional sales tax on the sale of biris from 1st August, 1972, till the notification remains in force. Their liability to pay additional sales tax for the period up to 31st July, 1972, however, is not affected by the notification and they are liable to pay additional sales tax from the date when Ordinance No. 107 of 1971 came into force till 31st July, 1972. 15.. With the above observation and clarification, this writ application is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. A.N. MUKHARJI, J.-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 115
... ...
... ... ..... . This plea was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, though it was rejected by the assessing authority. We are of the view that the slight inconsistency in the amounts involved cannot straightaway lead to the conclusion that the items of cash collections entered in the anamath account represent transactions different from the ones shown in the bills and entered in the regular accounts. On the facts of this case, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the facts are not sufficient to establish that the petitioner had effected suppressed transactions, especially when the other entries in the anamath book had been traced and correlated to the regular accounts and only a few transactions involving a small turnover, when compared with the total turnover reported by him, have not been fully correlated. The result is, the tax case is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue is set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 114
... ...
... ... ..... re engaged in hot jobs or in handling corrosive substances in the course of manufacture. That being so, it cannot be denied that those gloves had to be used in the course of manufacture. In my opinion, on the same reasoning, the tube-wells and pumps supplied to the manufacturer will be allowed to be exempted if it is found that these tube-wells and pumps are used for the purpose of manufacture of goods. In the result, this rule must be made absolute. The order of the Commercial Tax Officer must be quashed and the matter must be remitted to the Commercial Tax Officer for decision of the case in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. It is stated before me that the security deposited by the petitioner is lying with the Registrar, Appellate Side. The security may be allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner. The judgment and order as made in Civil Revision Case No. 4000(W) of 1968 shall govern the other rule, i.e., C.R. No. 4001(W) of 1968. Rule made absolute.
-
1972 (9) TMI 113
... ...
... ... ..... ). We are of opinion that in the case before us the price of the bags in which the copra was packed and sold is insignificant compared to the price of the copra itself. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court applies to the case. The result is that the revision case is allowed. The Sales Tax Officer will be entitled to collect only 2 per cent. as tax on the value of the gunny bags-the same rate of tax he can collect on the copra. In the circumstances, we do not pass any order regarding costs. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 112
... ...
... ... ..... reject the return as being incorrect. No investigation or enquiry in respect of the return filed by an applicant is envisaged or authorised at the stage of an application for issue of forms. The latter part of the order contained in annexure 2, therefore, is obviously bad as being unwarranted by the requirement of rule 31-C of the Rules. 10.. For the reasons stated above, this writ application is allowed in part. That portion of the order of respondent No. 3 contained in annexure 2 is set aside by which he has held that until the petitioner paid purchase tax his application for issue of forms could not be allowed. As in no other respect the requirement of rule 31-C is said to have been not fulfilled, it must be held that all the legal requirements of the said rule have been fulfilled. Hence, respondent No. 3 is directed to allow the application of the petitioner for issue of permit forms. There will be no order as to costs. AKBAR HUSAIN, J.-I agree. Petition partly allowed.
-
1972 (9) TMI 111
Whether the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1967 (Act No. 19 of 1967) are invalid on the ground that they seek to impose sales tax with retrospective effect in an unreasonable manner?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The attack on the validity of section 3 of that Act was repelled and it was held that the Parliament could, in exercise of its legislative competence, pass a law retrospectively validating the collections made under the State statutes. The present case is on a stronger footing from the point of view of the respondents because we are dealing in this case with retrospective legislation made by the same Legislature which had enacted the earlier law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned provisions are a valid piece of legislation and do not contravene article 19 of the Constitution.
-
1972 (9) TMI 109
Whether notice issued under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) should be quashed on the ground that it does not mention the reasons for the issue of the notice?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As the details of the material which led to the initiation of proceedings under section 12(8) of the Act had been recorded in the relevant case file. The said file, it would appear from the affidavit of Shri Mohanty, was kept available for reference by the High Court at the time of hearing. No reference, it would seem, was however made to that file because the High Court did not feel the necessity of doing so.
-
1972 (9) TMI 108
Whether the sales made locally of yarn transferred to the Madras State from the stocks of yarn in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala in respect of which sales tax had already been charged as inter-State sales are again liable to tax as first sales in the State of Madras?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Whether the provisions of section 15 makes an inroad into the texture of the local law, so that section 6 of the local Act will have to be read subject to and in conformity with the provisions of section 15 and the policy underlining that section and whether section 6 will be inapplicable to sales of declared goods, need not be considered in this case because we are clearly of the view that the sales of cotton yarn sold to the branches of the respondent in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, though they were inter-State sales of declared goods, were the first sales inside the State of Tamil Nadu and that being so, if those goods are transferred to Madras and sold in Madras, they are exempt from being taxed again since they have already been subjected to tax on the first sale inside the State. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusions of the Madras High Court.
-
1972 (9) TMI 87
Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... ally agree with the lower court on this point and nothing had been brought to our notice which may impel us to take a contrary view. Shri Saran, one of the objectors, who personally argued the case, questioned almost every item in general terms. We have already considered all such objections which need consideration. Others must be rejected without any specific reference. Thus, the appeal and the cross-objection are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The total amount due from the Syndicate on February 21, 1945, works out at Rs. 82,891.74 instead of Rs. 97,818.19 as determined by the trial court. The Syndicate is directed to return the said amount with interest at 3 from February 21, 1945, to January 22, 1963, and at 5 thereafter till realisation as directed by the trial court. The appellant shall bear his own costs of this appeal and that of the respondents. As regards the cross-objection, the parties shall bear their own costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500, if certified.
-
1972 (9) TMI 77
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... re the labour court and draw the official liquidator to each of these labour courts for the purpose of defending the case of the company. The purport and intention of the legislation seems to be that all these types of claims have to be decided by the official liquidator who is the responsible officer and vested with the powers to decide such claims. Taking the intendment of the Companies Act, I am of the view that such types of petitions have to be filed only before the official liquidator and, if aggrieved, the party concerned has ample opportunity and scope to file an appeal to this court. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I am of the view that the prayer for getting leave of this court to proceed with the petition before the labour court is misconceived. In these circumstances this application is dismissed. It is open to the applicant to withdraw the proceedings before the labour court and file the same before the official liquidator to get appropriate reliefs.
-
1972 (9) TMI 76
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... complaint against the financial stability of the respondent-company to the Registrar of Companies. Before filing the petition for winding up of the respondent company, the Registrar ought to have applied his mind to the fact of the future probable income of the company which will accrue before or simultaneously with the maturity of the claims of the subscribers to the various schemes. The mere fact that the company s liabilities exceed its assets, as per the balance-sheets, is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it is unable to pay its debts particularly when it has been meeting all the demands of its creditors when they accrued due. For the. reasons given above, I find no ground to wind up the company and this petition is accordingly dismissed. I, however, make no order as to costs because on the basis of the balance-sheets alone the Registrar was not unjustified in making this petition and the respondent-company has increased its share capital during its pendency.
-
1972 (9) TMI 73
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... ong with the general funds, as he is bound to do under the statute. The official liquidator states that this does not earn 6 separate interest and the interest which is apportionable to this sum of Rs. 30,000 is Rs. 9,000. We, therefore, direct the official liquidator to pay a sum of Rs. 39,000 to the applicant-respondent. The official liquidator will pay the sum of Rs. 39,000 to the respondent within two weeks after he obtains the copy of the decree. If there is any default, the amount will carry an interest of 6 from that date. As the amount involved is large and as the applicant-respondent has been kept out of this money for a considerable time, for over a decade, the office is directed to furnish the copy of the decree to the official liquidator forthwith, within Wednesday, the 27th September, 1972. It is hoped that the official liquidator will make the necessary application for the grant of the decree copy forthwith to enable the office to furnish the copy of the decree.
|
