|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 92 Records
-
1973 (9) TMI 94 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce to observe that instead of showing grace in refunding the excess amount charged, in accordance with the provisions of section 11AA, the department is trying to evade that payment by resorting to pleas not tenable under the law. On the admitted facts and in view of the mandatory provisions of section 11AA, the department was duty-bound to reopen the matter relating to the assessment of the assessee-firm pertaining to the years 1958-59 to 1964-65 and give them the necessary relief in accordance with law. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee-firm thus On the facts and circumstances of this case, provisions of section 11AA of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act are attracted and the assessee-firm is entitled to the refund of the tax paid in excess of 2 per cent on the sales of charcoal . The assessee-firm shall have its costs from the department in each reference separately which are assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (9) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wn and their use also is different. It is not therefore possible to treat the manure mixture as the same article as the components themselves. It is then pointed out that the manure mixture has not been prepared as a result of any manufacturing process and, therefore, it should be taken to have the same properties as its components. The question here is not whether the process adopted by the assessee is one of manufacture or not. Whether the process adopted is manufacture or otherwise, if the resultant product obtained by mixing the various articles of chemical fertilisers referred to in item 21 is sold as a different commercial product and for a different user, it has to be treated as a different article from the component. In our view, the view taken by the Tribunal in relation to the disputed turnover cannot be upheld. The tax case is, therefore, allowed and the Tribunal s order is partly set aside. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in respect of different parts of the same business on different basis. If such different methods are employed regularly and consistently the profits have to be computed in accordance with the respective methods, provided it results in a proper determination of the true profits. The assessee should, therefore, be taken to have adopted the cash basis so far as the sales tax collections are concerned and, therefore, the principle of the decision in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 31 S.T.C. 254 (S.C.) 87 I.T.R. 542 (S.C.). will stand attracted. We have to, therefore, hold that in this case the assessee has maintained his accounts in relation to the sales tax collections only on cash basis and, therefore, only when he pays out the amount for discharging his sales tax liability he can claim deduction. We, therefore, answer the question against the assessee. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (9) TMI 91 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der was that in some other case the Tribunal had taken a contrary view. That, in our opinion, does not justify an order of rectification in exercise of the powers under rule 38. 4.. Sri B.V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the assessee, raised a fresh ground, namely, that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not the authority competent to set aside the order of rectification, but it is the Commissioner. Such a ground does not appear to have been urged before the Tribunal as could be seen on a perusal of the order or the grounds of appeal. The assessee cannot be permitted to raise a ground which was not urged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5.. Therefore, these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 one set. The learned Senior High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance in S.T.R.P. Nos. 55 to 59 of 1973 within one week from today. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 90 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... atters leave no room for doubt that the method adopted by the assessing authorities respecting the garments prepared on order and sold by the petitioner may not be perfect, for it appears that the authorities have not taken note of the various determining factors as also the relevant provisions of the Act. Consequently, we are left with no alternative but to allow the writ petitions, quash the assessment order in each case by writs of certiorari, and remand the cases to respondent No. 1. The remand in each case is made in exercise of our powers under article 227 of the Constitution. We direct respondent No. 1 to proceed afresh in each case with the assessment in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Since this set of 14 cases avowedly partake the nature of test cases and the questions of law bearing on the interpretation of various provisions of the Act are almost res integra, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. PATHAK, J.-I agree. Petitions allowed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 89 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e matters was necessary. By prescribing the production of form C as the exclusive mode of proof of all these matters the Rules achieved the twin objects of enabling the dealer to gain the exemption, and at the same time, protecting the revenue. The rule was, therefore, clearly made to carry out the purposes of the Act. It was not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules made under the Central Act. It was clearly authorised by section 13(3) of the Act. These aspects of the question were not considered by the learned Judges of the High Court. I, therefore, express my respectful dissent from the view expressed by them. In State of Gujarat v. Hajihakumutdin 1969 23 S.T.C. 117., the Gujarat High Court were not concerned with the vires of any rule but they expressed their agreement with the Madras view. I respectfully disagree. I, therefore, hold that rule 12(3)(ii) is not ultra vires. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 88 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as upheld by the appellate authority and the first revisional authority and by taking an erroneous view of law it merely remanded the case. After the question of law referred to us is answered against the assessee, there does not seem to be any difficulty that the assessee will succeed in persuading the Tribunal to hear his revision on merits. But the question of law referred to us, I find no escape from the position, has got to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 11.. For the reasons stated above, I hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment dated 30th April, 1961, passed by Shri R.S.P. Sinha, Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Gaya, was valid in law even though it has been held by the Tribunal that he did not examine the accounts himself. Merely on that ground the order was not illegal and bad. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. S.K. JHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (9) TMI 87 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... parties that instead of the seller in the first instance paying the freight and despatching the goods, the purchaser at the receiving end pays the freight on behalf of the vendor and takes delivery. When the price is fixed by a statutory order and that price is inclusive of freight, it cannot be predicated as to what percentage of that price constitutes the freight and, in that view, it cannot be contended that the turnover of the goods is the price fixed by the Cement Control Order less the freight. The view which we take is supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh 1972 29 S.T.C. 639 1972 Tax. L.R. 2290. 6.. In the result, for the reasons stated above, these revision petitions are allowed, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is reversed, and the order of the authorities below are restored. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 86 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioner that any such excuse was pleaded even before him. All that it appears to have been urged was that it was for the department to prove mens rea in order to attract penalty. It was not argued by Sri Katageri that this court has laid down any such law. It was finally submitted by Sri Katageri that we may remit the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider whether there was any reasonable excuse for not making use of the goods for the purpose specified in the C form. We are unable to accede to his request in view of the conduct of the party. There was no explanation offered befors us as to why such explanation was not offered before the Commercial Tax Officer. From the order of the Commissioner also it is seen that no such excuse was pleaded before him. In these circumstances, we see no grounds calling for interference with the order of the Commissioner under appeal. 5.. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Appeal dismissed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 85 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shed by a writ of certiorari. There will also be a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said orders. Respondent No. 1 will, however, be at liberty to make an assessment for the said period in accordance with law and in the light of the principle laid down in this case. For the year ending 30th Chaitra, 1376 B.S., no assessment has been made and a mere notice dated 7th March, 1973, under section 11(4)(i) of the Act has been issued. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in respect of the said notice at this stage inasmuch as no assessment has been made by respondent No. 1 for the said period. I however make it clear that respondent No. 1 while making the assessment for the said period in pursuance of the said notice will do so in accordance with law and in the light of the principle decided in this case. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (9) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tter as the learned counsel for the assessee has not placed reliance on this judgment and has stated that his contention was not that the sales tax department committed any error in adding up the purchases of all the notified commodities for which different limits may have been fixed under section 3-D(3). The question which was decided in S.T.R. No. 273 of 1971 does not arise in the present case. Here the question is confined to the right of the department to add the turnover of notified goods with that of goods not so notified for purposes of payment of purchase tax under section 3-D(3) of the Act. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee in the three connected references is the same and all the references have been heard together, we direct that the assessee will get a consolidated set of costs in all the three references, which we assess at Rs. 150. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssed itself to this question at all. There is no finding as to when, where and to whom the sale was made. A sale in U.P. cannot be presumed if it is denied. It must be proved by evidence and relevant material. This has not been done in the present case. The question that really arose in this case was not whether there was any inter-State sale, but whether there was any sale in U.P. The question which has been referred to us is not the question which really arises in the case. We, therefore, reframe the question as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of cotton yarn in dispute was liable to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act? Since there is no material whatsoever for a finding that the cotton yarn in question was sold in U.P., the question as reframed by us has to be answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (9) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... ny had been seized in June or July, 1967, by the police but ample opportunity had been given to examine and inspect the documents seized for preparing the balance-sheet and profit and loss account. The prosecutions were concerned with the annual general meeting of the company held during the period 1957 to 1961. On account of ample opportunity having been granted to make inspections, and because such inspections were made, the convictions were upheld. No relief was granted under section 633 of the Companies, Act, 1956. If such opportunity for inspection had been proved by the complainant even in the present case, I would also have held that the accused persons had no reasonable excuse. As no such evidence has been led by the complainant, I cannot, on the facts, hold that the accused have failed to prove their defence in the present case. In the circumstances, the complaint fails and the accused persons, Shri Jagjit Singh Sawhney and Shri Gurcharan Singh Sawhney, are acquited.
-
1973 (9) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... been closed for more than a year, that there is no hope of its functioning in the future at all, that nobody seems to be interested in running the company and trading in its name. In this connection it may be mentioned that no representation was made to the Regional Director against the sanction asked for, and nobody has taken care to appear on behalf of the company or its directors to contest the present proceedings for winding up. The reserve surplus being nil, the company is not in a position to carry on its business either. Considering all these, I find that it is equitable, just and fair that the company be ordered to be wound up. In the result I allow the application and appoint the official liquidator to take up and carry on with the work of liquidation. He should take charge of the assets and records of the company and proceed with the work of the company s liquidation. In the circumstances of this case, the case being heard ex parte, there will be no order for costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... supplied and the amount received or receivable would not be revenue payable to the local authority within the meaning of the expression in section 530(1)(a). It is thus crystal clear that the claim of the petitioner which is undoubtedly a local authority and which was due on the relevant date and which became payable within 12 months next before the relevant date, yet, it being not revenue payable to local authority, the whole of it which constitutes electricity duty payable by the licensee to the State Government would be entitled to priority. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the liquidator is directed to admit the claim in the amount of Rs. 633.83 payable by the company to the petitioner as entitled to be paid in priority and balance of the claim is not entitled to priority and rejection for priority of the balance of the claim by the liquidator is correct and is hereby confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up – Application of insolvency rules, Preferential payments, Principles for interpretation of statutes
-
1973 (9) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Search and seizure - Sale proceeds of smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... in the course of a roving enquiry or was undertaken for a purpose which was not even collateral to the purpose for which the search was made under the Customs Act or under similar enactments, then such a seizure resulting for a naked arbitrary exercise of power was illegal and the resultant order should be removed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the instant case, there is no acceptable proof to find that the inspecting staff of the Central Excise Department or the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had at any time prior to the search and seizure entertained any reasonable belief, on material scrutinised by them that the petitioner was likely to arrive in Madras with tainted Indian currency attributable to the sale of smuggled goods or goods of illicit origin. As the foundation for the exercise of power is conspicuously absent in the instant case, following the ratio in Writ Petition No. 47 of 1972, I allow this Writ Petition. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (9) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Conviction is not bad, if inculpatory statement of the accused was accepted and exculpatory parts is rejected
-
1973 (9) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... he two ladies and the tax paid thereon was thus of no relevance in establishing either that the money belonged to them or that it did not belong to their respective husbands, who had brought it into the accounts of the assessee-firm. The circumstance was, therefore, not relevant for discharging the burden which lay on the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of explaining the cash credits. As the affidavits had been discarded and the circumstances of disclosure under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, and the payment of tax on the amounts disclosed was not relevant to prove the ownership of money, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus which lay on him to explain the source of the deposits. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax will be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (9) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... Under the circumstances, it would amount to laying an impossible burden of proof on the department and making the provisions for imposition of penalty wholly unworkable, if one were to insist that the department should still be called upon to prove by independent evidence that the assessee had concealed its income or that the amounts were not revenue receipts. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation put by the Division Bench of this court on the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali s case. In the present case, the Tribunal has considered all the circumstances relating to the cash credit of Rs. 3,500 and the Tribunal was satisfied that the revenue was able to prove that the amount of Rs. 3,500 was the concealed income of the assessee. As already stated, this is a finding of fact and no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
|
