|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 96 Records
-
1975 (3) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 855, in our view, empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable materials exist to induce the opinion that they show a determination, to lead it life of criminal in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or security only and if they are dangerous security risks. Mere Convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperilling saftey of society cannot be regarded as warranting surveillance under this Regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer. In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence of personal freedoms and the State will do well to revise these old police regulations verging perilously near unconstitutionality. With these hopeful abservations, we dismiss the writ petition. .Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... v. Emperor(2) and later by this Court in several cases(3), to a Magistrate making a record under ss. 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This rule squarely applies "where, indeed, the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other.(4)" The rule will be attracted with full force in the present case because non-verification of the surrender in the requisite manner would frustrate the very purpose of this provision. Intention of the legislature to prohibit the verification of the surrender in a manner other than the one prescribed, is implied in these provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, therefore, had vitiated the surrender and rendered it non-est for the purpose of s. 5 (3) (b). For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeals with one set of costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
letter of credit and all cases relating to firm commitments entered into before 18 December, 1961 ie liberation of Goa - licences issued before liberation between the period 12 February, 1961 and 4 December, 1961.
-
1975 (3) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shall stand dismissed; (b) the Rent Controller will take note of the subsequent development disabling the landlord from seeking eviction on which there is already an adverse finding by the High Court; (c) The landlord be allowed to amend his petition if he has a case for eviction on any other legally permissible ground; and (d) the parties be given fair and full opportunity to file additional pleadings and lead evidence thereon. But we make it clear that the subsequent event that the petitioner had come by a non-residential accommodation of his own in the same town having been found by the High Court, cannot be canvassed over again. That finding of legal disability cannot be reopened. We keep open for enquiry only grounds, if any, which may reasonably be permitted by amendment it they are of any relevance or use for eviction. With these observations we partially allow the appeal as indicated above and direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 129 - SUPREME COURT
Offender - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The term 'offender' in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the, time of committing robbery cannot attract section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon. In that view of the matter use of the gun by one of the culprits whether he was accused Ram Kumar or some body else, (surely one was there who had fired three shots) could not be and has not been the basis of sentencing the appellant with the aid of section 397.
-
1975 (3) TMI 128 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the dealer in any of these cases before issuing the impugned notice in form C.S.T. VII. The turnover has thus been provisionally determined to the best of his judgment by the respondent in contravention of subrule (4) of rule 14-A. In this view of mine, it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the assessing authority is competent to accept the figures of turnover mentioned in the return while rejecting the return or treating the return as incomplete and proceed to make the best of judgment assessment. Inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the petitioner the impugned notice is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed accordingly, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each case. This will, however, not preclude the respondent from issuing a notice and giving an opportunity to the dealer before making an assessment to the best of his judgment, if such assessment is not otherwise barred by law. Petitions allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vying tax on interState sales. Therefore, the second inter-State sales could not have been subjected to tax under the State law. Though the learned counsel referred to section 4 in the course of his arguments, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that that provision in any way assists him in support of his argument. As held in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 1967 20 S.T.C. 150., the inter-State character of the transaction is to be determined under section 3(a) and (b) and section 4 is relevant to decide the situs of such inter-State sale or the appropriate State which could bring it to tax. By determining the situs, the inter-State sale is not converted into a local sale which could have been assessed under the State law. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel that the second item of transaction is not liable to tax. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 126 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions precedent before the power can be exercised. The power of revision is not by way of review it is by way of superintendence of the order of assessment and other orders passed by the assessing authority. The power has been conferred and can be delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, an authority higher than the Sales Tax Officers, the normal assessing authority. The impugned notice states that the order of assessment which was sought to be revised was erroneous. Even further details why it was considered to be erroneous were also mentioned. The notice is thus in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act and does not suffer from any vice whatsoever. Therefore, this contention urged on behalf of the respondents also fails. The result is that this appeal is accepted and the order of the learned single Judge, dated 27th September, 1972, is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties, however, will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch it contended was depot sales and the finding of the assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that they were not depot sales, but inter-State sales, they did not choose to appeal and question the finding of fact before the Tribunal. The Board of Revenue pointed out that there were no circumstances in this case which go to show that they were prevented from filing the appeal or that there was any supervening circumstance, which warranted the investigation of the facts afresh. The appeal was not filed by the assessee presumably because they were satisfied with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In those circumstances, the Board of Revenue was in order in rejecting the claim of the appellant to go into the question of fact afresh and determine the issue. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Appeal dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (S.C.). is also of the same type as Kathan Nadar Co. v. State of Madras 1963 14 S.T.C. 694. That was one under section 11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, corresponding to section 8-B(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the transaction in dispute was a transaction of inter-State character under article 286(2) of the Constitution and another transaction in respect of which the dealer was not entitled to collect enhanced rate of tax. Therefore, both these decisions also do not help us for deciding the present case. In the view, which we have already arrived at that the amount received by the appellant was only a deposit and not a collection of any tax, the appellant is entitled to the exemption under the notification of the Pondicherry Government dated 21st November, 1967. The order of the Secretary, Finance Department, is therefore liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to another. It was also noticed in that case that the goods were out-of-State at the time when the contract was entered into and when they were appropriated towards the contract. On these facts this court held that though there was no specific terms relating to the place from which the goods are to be despatched mentioned in the contract itself, the transaction amounted to an inter-State sale. In the second of the case reported in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Arasan Match Industries 1969 23 S.T.C. 152., this court found on the facts that the parties contemplated the movement of the goods from one State to another even at the time of the contract. This fact clearly distinguishes those two cases from the case on hand. We accordingly hold that the disputed turnover is liable to be included in the assessment of the respondent. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and this revision petition is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the partners as such in the Kallidaikurichi unit, that these two individuals bought the necessary raw materials for the manufacture of appalams and got the appalams made in the Kallidaikurichi unit and then either the firm or the individuals were lifting their required quantities of appalams to their business places at Madurai, Madras, Tiruchirappalli and Salem, and were selling them on their own accounts. At the end of the year the total manufacturing expenses were computed and then the expenditure was allocated to the individuals and the partnership in the ratio in which they have lifted the quantity of appalams either as individuals or firm as such. On these facts, we are of the view that it amounted to a joint venture for manufacture and division of the manufactured goods and no sale is involved in this case. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal. The petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er registered dealer in column 3 of whose certificate the goods are specified. The specification of the place or places of business in the certificates of the registered dealers in the case before the Supreme Court was to indicate that they were registered dealers with reference to the said place or places of business, while the specification of certain goods in column 3 of the certificates of the petitioners before us was for the purposes of the provision in section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel cannot, therefore, derive any support for his contention from the aforesaid observation in the decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, the third contention also cannot be accepted. As all the contentions have failed, the two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 274 and 275 of 1972, and the nine Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 431 to 433, 1435 of 1973, and 803, 809, 849, 850 and 891 of 1974, are dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Appeals and petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 120 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mmon experience that the trucks carrying the goods leave Delhi at night, and even one truck carries goods of and for more than one party. It appears to us that the orders for supply of goods were generally received at Delhi sales office from where they were supplied and, in due course, the goods were also supplied from Delhi to these parties. Those sales, therefore, constituted inter-State sales in which the movement of the goods commenced from Delhi State and the sales tax authorities at Delhi alone had the right or the jurisdiction to levy inter-State sales tax thereon. The sales tax authorities of Punjab (now Haryana) could not levy intra-State sales tax on those sales. For these reasons, the two questions set out above, duly corrected by us, are answered in favour of the assessee and against the sales tax department. The assessee is entitled to its costs of this reference from the respondent. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. SANDHAWALIA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1975 (3) TMI 119 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... B in no way suggests that the certificate should be confined to each transaction separately. Of course, column D states that the invoice number and date will have to be mentioned and it uses the singular but from this we are unable to infer that the form prescribed was in any way intended to impose a condition that for each transaction there should be separate E-1 forms. We must observe that the use of the word invoice in singular should also be taken to include invoices and not to be restricted to an invoice alone. We have to, therefore, hold that the form produced by the petitioners herein cannot be rejected as defective. It is not in dispute that the goods covered by the form are the goods that fall under section 8(3) and that the transaction was one falling under section 6(2). It follows that the petitioners are entitled to the deduction on the ground of exemption under section 6(2). The petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 118 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .. Sri B.B. Mandappa, the learned Government Pleader, however, relied upon another decision of the very same Division Bench in Sterling Construction and Trading Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, X Circle, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-21 1973 32 S.T.C. 235. and contended that the penalty payable under section 13(2) of the Act was different from other penalties leviable under the statute. But, it is not possible to accept the submission made on behalf of the sales tax authorities in view of the decision in Babulal s case(1), referred to above, in which the question for consideration before this court was whether penalty leviable under section 13(2) can be recovered or not. The said decision is binding on me. 5.. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forbear from recovering from the petitioner the penalty claimed under section 13(2) of the Act in respect of sales tax payable for the assessment year 1963-64. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e was not transferred in their name, but only an endorsement was effected to the effect that the vehicle was under a hire-purchase agreement with the petitioners was true. But the Tribunal began to consider the question as to whether the transaction had suffered any tax already, forgetting that the transaction by the petitioners itself was not a sale at all. On the facts, which could not be disputed, and as there is no evidence to show the contrary, we have to state that the transaction was not sale at all. It was a financial agreement and in order to secure the payment of the loan, the petitioners have obtained the sale note, the hire-purchase agreement, the promissory note and the endorsement in the registration certificate. In the circumstances, therefore, neither the assessment nor the penalty levied is sustainable. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The orders of the Tribunal and the assessing officers are set aside. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 116 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... variations. That can always happen when an average is taken. But that by itself cannot be made a ground at the instance of an assessee who had not furnished information regarding matters, which he was bound to supply to the assessing authority and which were peculiarly within his knowledge. This court has dealt with several cases of estimates made on the basis of current consumption. A consumption rate of 9 units to 11 units had been upheld by this court in several tax revision cases. This has been the practice for over a decade now and in the light of these decisions of this court and the practice followed, it will be difficult to say that 10 units current for crushing one quintal of copra has no basis other than the imagination of the assessing authority. Whatever that be, in this case the assessee himself had calculated on the basis of 10 units for crushing 1 quintal of copra. 8.. We dismiss these tax revision cases with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 115 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e had a particular method of maintaining his accounts, which would entitle him to urge that the non-maintenance of the stock register would not be a material circumstance to disbelieve the accounts. 7.. In addition to the above facts, it has to be noted that under rule 32(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, it is necessary for the assessee to maintain separately under separate heads the turnover of goods which carry different percentage of sales tax. There is no explanation from the assessee why this has not been done. The turnover includes purchases and sales of 3 per cent and 12 per cent taxable goods. The non-maintenance of these accounts is also one of the circumstances which should be taken along with the absence of a stock register to reject the accounts. Therefore, the rejection of the books of account by the Appellate Tribunal, according to us, is correct. In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (3) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it constitutionally valid and not to include something within it so as to make it ultra vires of its powers. This court also held in T.A. Kumarasamy Pathar v. State of Madras 1969 23 S.T.C. 447. that the total turnover as defined in the Act has no reference to inter-State sales which are outside the scope of the Act, but has reference only to sales which are normally chargeable to tax under the Act but due to exemption are not subject to tax. We have, therefore, no doubt in rejecting the argument of the learned counsel that total turnover in section 7 could not include second sales of declared goods. We may also point out that section 7 itself is an optional provision and if the assessee considers that it will not be beneficial for him to be assessed under section 7 he could as well opt to be assessed under section 3(1) of course the option will have to be exercised as per the Rules. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Appeal dismissed.
|
