|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 113 Records
-
1974 (9) TMI 97 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d not be granted full relief with regard to the concessional rate for the period covered by the certificate granted to the purchasers under section 6A(1)(b). 5.. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in answering the question referred to us in the negative. I accordingly hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the claim of the dealer for the concessional rate of tax under section 6A of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, can be allowed only from 14th December, 1962, and not from 1st November, 1962. The claim made by the dealer for such a concession from 1st November, 1962, was justified in law. The question is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to its costs-hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100 only. UNTWALIA, C.J.-I fully concur in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother and have nothing useful to add. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ary food is defined as Material consisting of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and supplementary substances (as minerals, vitamins) that is taken or absorbed into the body of an organism in order to sustain growth, repair, and all vital processes and to furnish energy for all activity of the organism. According to Chambers s 20th Edition Dictionary food means what one feeds on that which, being digested, nourishes the body whatever sustains or promotes growth . Interpreted in its primary sense food must be a thing taken into the system as nourishment and not merely as a stimulant. It would be straining the meaning of the word food to make it apply to tea which is used primarily as a stimulant. Tea is never taken for the purpose of nourishment and, therefore, cannot be included in the term food . Our answer to the question referred is that hot tea is not cooked food. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there is no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by this court in M/s. National Traders (India), Indore v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax 1968 22 S.T.C. 86 1968 M.P.L.J. 688., where it was held that certificates of sales of medicines to Government departments required by rule 24(ii) could be admitted in revision. These observations have our full concurrence. Unfortunately the case of Sardar House 1969 23 S.T.C. 276 1971 M.P.L.J. 712. was not cited before the Division Bench which earlier heard the instant case. Had it been cited, we are sure, the necessity for this reference to the Full Bench would not have arisen. 7.. For these reasons, our answer to the question referred by the Board of Revenue is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the certificates, annexures II to V, were wrongly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Board was right in directing their acceptance. The assessee shall get costs of this reference from the department. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 94 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the articles meant to generate electrical energy were also within the purview of electrical goods. It is, thus, evident that the instruments or articles which are used for measuring electric current would be electrical goods. For the assessee reliance was placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Traders, Bareilly 1974 33 S.T.C. 3. In that case it was held that the two requirements of the electrical goods are that they must be used by electrical energy and that they must answer the description of electrical goods. Applying this decision, it is evident that ammeters and voltmeters are used by electrical energy and they are electrical goods. In our opinion, the ammeters and voltmeters were liable to be assessed as electrical goods. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Sales Tax would be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 93 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dnut oil to start with it none the less remained groundnut oil even though because of the increased rancidity it may become unfit for human consumption. Groundnut oil is generally used both for human consumption as well as for manufacture of soaps. If because of the oxidation process it ceases to be available to one of its general use but is none the less still usable for manufacture of soaps, the mere circumstance that it has become non-edible will not change its nature or character as a commercial commodity. It does not, in our opinion, become an oil other than groundnut oil. In our opinion, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was right in holding that the turnover of the sales of residual oil was liable to be taxed as groundnut oil at one per cent. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... admit that the plaintiffs discovered the mistake only from this defendant on 14th October, 1968. Even assuming without admitting for purposes of argument, the said plea is true, the suit is still out of time. As seen above, if the plaintiff, in its objection letter dated 14th March, 1968, has chosen to rely upon the decision in Khosla s case 1966 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.). the statement that it discovered the mistake only on 14th October, 1968, is incorrect. I am unable to accept the said statement. In view of the above, I hold that the suit is barred by limitation. I answer the issue against the plaintiff. Issue No. 4-Inasmuch as I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the main relief itself for several reasons stated above, there is no question of the plaintiff being entitled to any interest. In the result, the suit will stand dismissed with costs of defendants 1 and 2. There will be no order as to costs as regards defendants 3 and 4. Suit dismissed.
-
1974 (9) TMI 91 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l No. 1 is a specific provision covering ornaments of gold, whereas serial No. 32 refers to ornamental metal-ware, not ornaments as such, specifically excluding ornaments of personal wear made of gold. In our view, there can be no manner of doubt that applying the common parlance test and also upon a true construction of serial Nos. 1 and 32 the sale of ornaments decorated with filigree works would come within the sweep of serial No. 1 and would be exigible to 2 per cent tax thereunder. 5.. We would, for the aforesaid reasons, answer the question referred to us in the following manner, namely, that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ornaments decorated with filigree works are taxable at 2 per cent as per serial No. 1 of the schedule of taxable goods. The reference is accordingly answered. The State shall pay the costs of the reference to the assessee which is assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly. PANDA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 90 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... purpose of claiming or allowing rebate. 10.. In my opinion, therefore, the question as reframed by me must be answered by saying that although filing of return as also payment of tax admitted on the basis of such return are the two conditions for claiming rebate, for the purpose of section 15, however, the condition relating to filing of return is only descriptive and, consequently, if the return is treated as one filed under the Act, the rebate must be allowed, if the admitted tax has been paid before the filing of the return. In the instant cases since the returns have been treated as filed under the Act and the admitted tax have also been paid within the prescribed period, the rebate has been wrongly refused. I further hold that the case, Jamuna Flour and Oil Mills 1968 22 S.T.C. 1. has been correctly decided. 11.. The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Hearing fee Rs. 200 (Two hundred) consolidated. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 89 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. M/s. Sarjoo Prasad Ram KumarCivil Appeal No. 2114 of 1969 decided on 4th October, 1972. That case is not applicable to the present case. In that case, the Commissioner, Sales Tax, had assigned the jurisdiction of the various Assistant Sales Tax Officers sector-wise. The Supreme Court held that, in view of the classification of work, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer assigned to one sector could not touch or deal with the cases arising in another sector. In the present case, there has been no assignment of work between the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and the Sales Tax Officer, either territory-wise or according to their pecuniary jurisdiction. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 88 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he parties. In other words, the liability to pay the freight was agreed to be that of the purchasers. In this view, the only possible conclusion is that having regard to the terms of the contract the price shown in the bill on account of freight was wrongly added. It should not have been shown in the bill. The present case is in line with the decision in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products case 1969 24 S.T.C. 487 (S.C.)., and on this view the decisions in United Timber Corporation 1972 29 S.T.C. 646. as well as in Tungabhadra Industries 1960 11 S.T.C. 827 (S.C.). become distinguishable. In our opinion, the Judge (Revisions) was justified in holding that the amount of freight would be deemed to have been separately charged by the assessee and on this view the amount of freight was validly excluded from the turnover. Our answer to both the questions referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 87 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hority, but unfortunately the alleged mistake remained undetected. It is also noticeable that section 22 is not confined to mistake of law alone it extends to mistake of facts as well. If the mistake is evident from the record it is capable of being rectified. In the present case the assessee alleges that a perusal of the account books would bring out the mistake in the return. He reinforces the submission by reference to the finding recorded by the Judge (Revisions) at the reference stage. Under the circumstances the case was prima facie within the purview of section 22 and the Judge (Revisions) ought to have gone into the merits of the mistake. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 5th March, 1974, is set aside. The matter is sent back to the revising authority for deciding the application under section 22 afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner would be entitled to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1974 (9) TMI 86 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Legislature is competent to levy sales tax on the turnover of the restaurants as provided in the said section. That being so, the petitioners are entitled neither to the declaration prayed for, nor the consequential writ of mandamus. The question that the impugned section was violative of article 14 of the Constitution has not been pressed before us. Even otherwise, we are Inclined to hold that the fact that fruits, vegetables and other perishables were exempted from sales tax cannot avail the petitioners. Once the appropriate legislature is empowered to levy the sales tax, it is a matter for that legislature to exempt any of the goods from the tax. Further, it cannot be said that the petitioners and the vendors of fruits and vegetables, etc., are similarly situated to attract the vice of discrimination. No other question has been argued before us. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each of the writ petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1974 (9) TMI 85 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... making sewai is nothing but machinery as commonly understood. No other notification issued under section 3-A relating to sewai-ki-machine has been brought to our notice. The result is that the instrument manufactured by the assessee was machinery under the notification dated 1st October, 1965, and was taxable at 6 per cent. In this case also, the revising authority has mentioned that in the ordinary course of business sewai-ki-machine is not considered to be a machine as accepted in the general sense. There is no evidence on the record to support this conclusion. In common parlance, mechanical contrivances are understood as machinery. In the result, we answer the first question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee, and the second question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 84 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t there is also no express prohibition on the appellate authority to consider such evidence which would be necessary for determination of the question under subsection (4) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which has to be determined by the appellate authority, as that question is before the appellate authority. We are not concerned with what would have been the effect if the Assistant Commissioner or Additional Commissioner had considered these declaration forms. But it could not be said that by not considering the declaration forms and by not dealing with them the dealer had not been affected as the learned Member, Board of Revenue, has stated In his order. In the aforesaid view of the matter, question No. (1) must be answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer and question No. (2) is also answered in the negative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. PYNE, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (9) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Turnover of the sheets in question fell within the category of iron or steel as defined under Section 3-AA.
-
1974 (9) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... have not come across a case where such a long period has been given, but in the peculiar facts of the case, I think it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant such a long time to enable the defendant-company to pay up its dues. In doing so, I have kept the creditors interest in view. I have not lost sight of the fact that constituents of the petitioning company are also shareholders of the defendant-company and in their own interest liquidation of the defendant-company, if it is really capable of reviving and running its business, would not be beneficial and I have taken into account the sincerity of the defendant-company and its directors in reviving the business activities by fighting against all odds. If the debts are not satisfied within the time indicated, the winding-up proceeding shall proceed in accordance with law on the application of the petitioning creditor. In the peculiar facts of the case, I direct parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding.
-
1974 (9) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... govern the question of abatement arising in cases under the Companies Act. That being so, in view of the provisions of rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the provisions of abatement as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, will apply to the petition under the Companies Act and so also the appeals filed under the Companies Act. That being so, Mulk Raj Mehta having died much before the appeal was decided by the Letters Patent Bench and his legal representatives not having been brought on record the appeal as against him had certainly abated and, in fact, the decision made against him when he was no more in this world, is a nullity. I accept the objections filed by Jagdish Lai Mehta, one of the legal representatives of Mulkh Raj Mehta. The sale and attachment of the property is set aside. The property shall return to the legal representatives of Mulk Raj Mehta and the auction-purchaser will be entitled to refund of the amount paid by him in accordance with the law.
-
1974 (9) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... ver, with great respect, we would like to point out that the conclusion reached by the Division Bench appears to run counter to the express language used in sub-section (3) of section 23. In all humility, we are of the view that, on a plain reading of sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act, the proper scope and ambit of that exception is as we have indicated above in the earlier part of our judgment. In the result, the petition succeeds, and we hereby accord our sanction to the proposed scheme of amalgamation subject to the condition that similar sanction is obtained by the transferor-company from the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. In prayer (b) of the petition, the petitioners are allowed to delete the words the close of business hours or occurring in the first and second line of the prayer (b). The amendment to be carried out by the petitioners by tomorrow. The petition is, therefore, granted in terms of prayers (a ) to (i) subject to the condition mentioned above.
-
1974 (9) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Seizure of goods - Detention, extension of time - Hearing - Penalty, confiscation - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Natural justice
-
1974 (9) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Natural justice is not violated for want of third test of samples when the earlier two tests led to the same results. - Samples - Yarn
|
