|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 150 Records
-
1975 (12) TMI 151 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he notification and get the exemption claimed. 7.. In arriving at the above conclusion I am supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in A.P. Mariappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras 1962 13 S.T.C. 746. wherein it has been said The taxable event under the Act is either sale or purchase and the scheme of the Act is that each transaction of sale or purchase by a dealer attracts tax at the point of time when the transactions take place though for the purpose of convenience the computation of the turnover is made annually. The liability to pay tax therefore arises on the happening of the taxable event though collection may be postponed till after the total turnover is determined, the tax levied and the actual demand made. A sum of money is said to be payable when a person is under an obligation to pay it. The word payable may therefore signify an obligation to pay at a future time. 8.. The original petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 150 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed. The assessment order for 1364 B.S. and the certificate therefor are quashed as it includes sales for a period when sugar was exempted from tax under the 1954 Act. The Commercial Tax Officer however will proceed to pass orders of assessment in respect of sales of cane sugar-candy and palm sugar-candy for the year 1364 B.S., up to 13th December, 1957, on notice to the appellants, who will be afforded suitable opportunity to produce their books and papers for the purpose. If, however, the appellants fail to produce necessary papers for any reason, the Commercial Tax Officer will proceed in accordance with law to assess the tax payable to the best of his judgment and to recover the tax as may be found due. The appeal accordingly is allowed in part as indicated above. Let appropriate writ issue accordingly in respect of the assessment order for 1364 B.S. There will be no order for costs and all interim orders are vacated. BANKIM CHANDRA ROY, J.-I agree. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Sales Tax Act, 1956, for having committed an offence defined in clause (f) thereof. Under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which applies by reason of the provisions of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a reference can only lie in respect of a question of law arising out of an order of the Tribunal which affects the liability of any person to pay tax or penalty, or to forfeiture of any sum or which affects the recovery from any person of any amount under section 39 . No reference can lie only in order to determine a person s liability to be prosecuted. Since question No. (2) above in respect of which a reference is now asked for does not fall under any of the three heads provided for by section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the application must fail on this ground also. For the above reasons, we dismiss this application. The petitioner will pay to the respondents the costs of this application fixed at Rs. 120. Application dismissed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 148 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pothan Joseph and Sons(2) and by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Arisetty Butchanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax(3). Sub-section (6) of section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is in terms very similar to sub-section (5) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and sub-section (5) of section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. In a reference made under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee in which the applicant-assessee remained absent, namely, Gajadhar Prasad Nathu Lal v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax(4), the Madhya Pradesh High Court arrived at the same conclusion. We accordingly decline to answer the question referred to us and return the reference to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The applicants will pay to the respondents the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 150. The fee of Rs. 100 deposited by the applicants will be appropriated towards the amount of costs awarded to the respondents. Reference not answered.
-
1975 (12) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the said notification, the sales by the petitioner were sought to be treated as first sales and liable to tax. It was therefore held that the Government had no power to levy tax on the assessee by exercise of its power of exemption retrospectively applicable to another. The learned Government Pleader also contended that since the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of an appeal, this court should not interfere by way of certiorari. However, since the assessing authorities cannot go behind the validity of the notification issued under section 9, we cannot accede to the said contention. For all the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that G.O. Ms. No. 437 dated 18th May, 1971, is effective and enforceable only on and from 1st July, 1971, the date of its publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and not with effect from any earlier date. The writ petition is therefore allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 146 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x liability would work out to Rs. 400. Thus, if the turnover of sale of liquor is taken into account, the liability of the assessee goes up by Rs. 2,000. If sale of liquor is not taxable, it cannot be made taxable by this process. 6.. Drinks as such cannot cover liquor, even where drink is used as-a substitute of liquor. Our answer to the second question, therefore, shall be On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the turnover of foreign liquor business from the turnover of the dealer, though the reason for our conclusion is very different from what had been ascribed by the Tribunal. It would follow that the assessee has to be assessed only on the turnover of the hotel business (excluding the turnover of sale of liquor) in terms of rule 90(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. The assessee shall have his costs. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred and fifty. N.K. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1975 (12) TMI 145 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... construed in their commercial sense, and rejected the contention of the assessee that the expression refrigerator was generally and commercially understood as a refrigerator used for domestic purposes only. There was clear evidence in that case to show that the cooling plant which was used for mercerising processes was capable of being used for refrigeration purposes also. It was not an apparatus solely and exclusively meant for mercerising processes. The facts of that case are not similar to those in the present case, although it may be pointed out that the Bombay High Court did adopt the principle of construction according to the commercial sense. 7.. Viewed in this light, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the revised order of the Sales Tax Officer. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision case. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 144 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of Section 171, Sub-section (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - enactment of Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 171 of the new Act - argument of the Revenue Authorities that when notices u/s 148 were issued for reopening the assessments of the Hindu Undivided Family, all the provisions of the new Act became applicable and they included Sub-sections (6) of Section 171 and, therefore, that Sub-section was applicable for recovery of the tax reassessed on the Hindu Undivided Family pursuant to the notices under Section 148 - Held that:- Appeal allowed. The argument f revenue is without force as it is based on a misconstruction of the words "all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly" in Clause (ii) of Section 297(2)(d). These words merely refer to the machinery provided in the new Act for the assessment of the escaped income. They do not import any substantive provisions of the new Act which create rights or liabilities. The word 'accordingly' in the context means nothing more than "for the purpose of assessment" and it clearly suggests that the provisions of the new Act which are made applicable are those relating to the machinery of assessment. The words "all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly" cannot therefore be construed as incorporating by reference Sub-section (6) of Section 171 so as to make it applicable for recovery of the tax reassessed on the Hindu Undivided Family in cases falling within Clause (ii) of Section 297(2)(d). This contention of the Revenue Authorities must accordingly be rejected.
-
1975 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant, the Northern Railway, Jodhpur, is liable to pay sales tax on the sales of unserviceable materials and scrap, etc., for the period in question?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There can be no dispute that the legislature was competent to give retrospective effect to the definition of "business" introduced by the amending Act. Thus the High Court was right in its conclusion.
-
1975 (12) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the transaction constituted sale in the course of inter-State trade?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Even though the sale took place at Calcutta, as rightly found by the High Court, since the movement of goods preceded the sale in pursuance of the contract of sale which contained a clear stipulation that the goods were to move from Orissa to Calcutta in West Bengal, the movement of goods was occasioned by the sale itself which took place in Calcutta. In these circumstances, therefore, the High Court was legally justified in holding that in all these appeals the cases were clearly covered by the provisions of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
-
1975 (12) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Fees in schedule x to be paid, Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... puniri pro nno delicto). It is essential for the application of clause (2) of article 20, that (1) there must have been a previous prosecution, (2) the accused must have been punished at that prosecution, (3) subsequent proceeding also must be one for the prosecution and punishment of the accused, and (4) the proceedings on both occasions must be in relation to the same offence. In order to attract this clause, the prosecution must have ended in punishment. The proceedings contemplated under this article, therefore, are proceedings of a criminal nature before a court of law or a judicial tribunal. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Registrar is a court of law or a judicial tribunal while he acts under section 611(2) of the Act. The petitioner has no case that the learned Magistrate has convicted or punished him. What article 20 prohibits is only a second punishment for the same offence. This petition has, therefore, no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Officer , Winding up – Power of company to appoint and fix remuneration of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... roceed to recover the tax due and payable by the company in accordance with law. He may proceed against the assets of the company wherever they are and the official liquidator has only a statutory duty to assist the Income-tax Officer in the discharge of his duties and there is no valid or justifiable ground for taking this obstructive attitude. For these reasons, we hold that the official liquidator who is in charge of the scrutiny of the books and papers of the company for the purpose of submitting his report to the court about the affairs, management and administration of the company during the material period, is the principal officer within the meaning of clause (35) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act and he has a statutory duty and obligation to furnish the return of the company for the assessment year 1966-67 and assist the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (12) TMI 109 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... owed that the particulars of income not so included in the return would be itself amount to concealment of the particulars of that income. It is obvious that this view of the IAC is undefencible. It is a settled law that in order to bring home the charge of concealment of particulars of income for which penalty is leviable under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the revenue has to establish means-rea on the part of the assessee in not returning the full particulars of his income or for concealing any particulars of his income. Thus in view of what has been said above we hold that the revenue had failed to establish means rea on the part of the assessee in not including the particulars of the income in question in the return filed by the assessee originally and the impugned penalty order of the IAC is not sustainable. We accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the IAC and quash the penalty of Rs. 1,48,507 imposed by the IAC on the assessee. The appeal is allowed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 106 - ITAT MAHARASHTRA
... ...
... ... ..... as has been exhaustively and full discussed above, is a subsidiary product or bye-product obtained in the manufacturing process. 25. Finally, the alternative contention raised by Shri Narayan is that is deduction in respect of the sales of yarn waste should be allowed on the ground that the same are reseals. However, as pointed out by Shri Karkhanis, the definition of resale in s. 2(26)(iii) is a sale of a purchased goods being goods specified in an entry in Sch. B without doing anything to them which takes them out of description thereof in that entry. This test is not satisfied in the present case. Cotton yarn when purchased fell within Sch. B, Part I, entry 2. However, as seen above, yarn waste has been taken out of the description of Schedule B, Part I entry, 2. it covered by Sch. C, entry 1. The sale of yarn waste cannot therefore be held to be a resale for purposes of deduction from turnover in the present case. 26. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1975 (12) TMI 104 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... find that the two Tribunal decisions relied upon by the State Representative do not help him at all. It is not the appellants case that these are textiles. If these were textiles, these goods would not have been exigible to tax. The Tribunal decisions in both the cases were that these were not textiles and were also not readymade garments. These were intermediate goods. As intermediary goods, this would have been ordinarily liable to be taxed as multi point goods since these do not figure in the schedules. But, these are readymade goods (garments or non-garments) made of cloth and fall within the meaning of G.O. 4435 Revenue dt. 30th Nov., 1962. Such G.O. has been issued along with a notification under s. 17 of the TNGST Act 1959. Under the circumstances we do not find any justification for revising the assessments which were correctly made. 5. In the result the appeals are allowed and the orders of revision are cancelled. Consequently the original assessments stand restored.
-
1975 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... er has not disposed of the same. We can perceive a situation where the collection was prima facie justified but all the same it had be refunded on complete facts becoming available on an application under r. 35(10). In view of the same, we may ordinarily await the completion of the proceeding on an application under r. 35(10). But, as pointed out earlier, there is no valid order after enquiry. Even otherwise, the appellant had prima facie explained the position and such position reveals no liability. Non-observance of formalities under s. 42 may invite penalty. But that cannot justify collection of tax where non is due. As further pointed out the goods themselves went back to Hyderabad. In view of the same we do not find any point in awaiting the completion of refund proceedings. We do not feel that initial collection itself was justified. We find that the detention order is invalid. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to refund of the tax paid.
-
1975 (12) TMI 102 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... n an opportunity to rectify the omission. In this view of the matter we feel that this matter also should go back to the assessing authority, for proper consideration of the C form in respect of this turnover of Rs. 14,807. If the C form is not found acceptable the appellant should be given an opportunity to rectify and omission therein or to file a fresh C firm. 9. In the result the appeals are substantially allowed Relief due for the 3 years under appeal are mdash Rs. 1,03,790-42 for 1969-70 to 10 per cent Rs. 3,81,649-75 for 1970-71 at 10 per cent Rs. 2,14,084-32 for 1972-73 at 10 per cent 10. The appellant rsquo s claim for concessional rate of tax for Rs. 23,133.75 at 7 per cent for 1969-70 and the State Representative rsquo s claim for restoration of the rate of tax to 10 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 14,807 for asst. yr. 1970-71 are both remanded back to the assessing authority for a decision in the light of our observations in the two immediately preceding paragraphs.
-
1975 (12) TMI 101 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... collection of tax against initial stage was not warranted. There is no need, therefore, to await the completion of refund proceedings under r. 35(10). Besides the further check of accounts as evident from the concerned AO rsquo s report confirms the appellant rsquo s claim. There has not yet been a sale of the goods involved within the State of Madras. Actually, these goods are meant to be used in formulation of pesticides and insecticides. If they are sold, we have no doubt that the authorities could be able to collect the tax since the accounts are within their purview. Obviously we cannot authorise retention of tax merely on the possibility of such sale at a future date, when the initial collection is found to be unjustified. In this view of the matter, the appeal has to be allowed. 6. In the result the order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Puzhal Check Post is set aside. He is directed to refund the advance tax and surcharge collected on the impugned consignment.
-
1975 (12) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ised by claiming that an assessment must not be partly dismissed and partly remanded. We find that the argument of the learned counsel is ultra-technical. Whatever, the AAC can himself do, he can also direct the assessing authority to do. Apparently he remanded the matter to meet the Department rsquo s technical objection that such forms should ordinarily be filed before the assessing authority. We therefore do not find any-thing wrong in his direction. At any rate we have ourselves remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for considering D forms in case such consideration becomes necessary, we have no doubt that the assessing authority will look into this part of the turnover also. 7. The appeals are remanded to the assessing authority in respect of the turnovers disputed before us only for consideration of the appellant rsquo s claims for exemption as well as alternative claim as to place of sale and its claims for concessional rate of tax on the lines indicated.
-
1975 (12) TMI 94 - ITAT MADHYA PRADESH
... ...
... ... ..... that the price fixed is for sugar. The price of the bag has not been taken into consideration in fixing the price charged to the retail sellers and it is mentioned that bage are to b given to the retail sellers. The order further says that sugar will be sold in wholesale as per instructions to the dealer from time to time. This not only is the price fixed but also parties to whom sugar is to be supplied. It is clear that the transaction does not amount to sale as defined in the Sales of Goods Act. The order further makes it clear that no price has been charged for the bardana. There is no sale of bardana, therefore, and assessment of tax is set aside. 5. The decision of the Kerala High Court A. Srinivas Pai vs. State of Kerala (XXX VI STC-482) cited by learned counsel for respondent will not be applicable to this case, as in that case there was no question of price control. 6. The appeal is allowed and the assessment of tax on bardana in which sugar was supplied is set aside.
........
|
