|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 111 Records
-
1976 (1) TMI 169 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e principles laid down in K.M. Chopra s case 1967 19 S.T.C. 46. by this court and is Manohar Brothers case 1962 13 S.T.C. 686. by the Madras High Court, the obvious result is that the certificate filed before the appellate authority, wherein the date of registration was mentioned, could not be used to supplement the deficiency in the C forms that were filed before the assessing authority. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that regarding the date of registration, which was not mentioned in the three C forms originally produced, evidence should have been accepted in the reassessment proceedings. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Tribunal for disposing of the case accordingly. 15.. In the circumstances of the case, we shall leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (1) TMI 168 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the category of cloth for purposes of entry No. 6, Schedule I, to the State Act. 15.. We would, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows (1) In the facts and the circumstances of the case, an implied sale of packing material taxable to State and Central sales taxes can be presumed. (2) As a result of the amendment giving retrospective effect, vide sections 9 and 10 of the M.P. General Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971 (Act No. 13 of 1971), hessian cloth will be treated as outside entry No. 6 of Schedule I and would therefore be held liable to State and Central sales taxes for the period prior to 6th May, 1971, as a retrospective effect was given to the said amendment. 16.. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Tribunal for disposing of the case accordingly. 17.. In the circumstances of the case, we shall leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (1) TMI 167 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... conditions contained in the contract between the respondent and the foreign company. This, in our view, is not of much significance at all. There are no such differences in these terms and conditions as would lead to the conclusion that the respondent had imported the goods on its own behalf and in its turn sold the goods to M.R. and Co. as contended by Mr. Bhabha. In fact, what is more significant is that in the contract dated 17th February, 1963, between the foreign company and the respondent the price of the copper ingots is shown as pound 239-5-0 per long ton c.i.f. and in the contract between the respondent and M.R. and Co. this very sum has been shown as the price per long ton c.i.f. Bombay, and this has been referred to subsequently in that contract as the c.i.f. cost of the material. In the result, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The applicant to pay the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... son to doubt the claim of the assessees that the sum of Rs. 4,673.46 related to the sales return. We have already held in Madras Radiators and Pressings, Avadi Road, Ambattur v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 37 S.T.C. 123. (T.C. No. 369 of 1970 decided on 10th April, 1975), that even in respect of sales made in the previous assessment year, the dealer is entitled to claim a deduction from the total taxable turnover, the turnover relating to sales return in the year in which the goods were returned to the dealer. There is no dispute that the sales return in the instant case was during the assessment year 1965-66 though some of the sales related to the previous year. In view of our abovesaid decision, the assessees are entitled to claim deduction in the assessment year 1965-66. We, accordingly, confirm the order of the Tribunal relating to the sales return also. In the result, the tax revision petition fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 165 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court, at this stage It is premature to hold that the petitioners did not carry on transactions which were sales under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the petitioners were not liable to sales tax. This question will have to be decided in the light of each transaction entered into by the petitioners in the light of the direction issued by the authority under the Colliery Control Order and then the assessing authority will have to decide whether such direction of the Coal Commissioner took away all the freedom of the contracting parties and made the transactions not sale in terms of section 2(g) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in my opinion, the challenge to the impugned notice at this stage cannot also be sustained. The application therefore must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. The rule nisi is discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... turnover of the seller of the goods, then it could not be applied to a case where the purchaser, after having given the declaration, sells the same goods as spare parts, because, in such a case, penalty would be levied with reference to the sales turnover of the person, who gave the declaration and contravened the same and not with reference to the turnover of his seller. We are of the view that the turnover referred to in the section, with reference to which the penalty is levied, is the turnover of the offender and not the turnover of his seller. We are, therefore, of the view that under section 23, a penalty could be levied only for a contravention of not using the article as component part of any other item manufactured by the purchaser, but selling as a spare part to a third party. In the result, both the tax revision cases are allowed and the order levying penalty is set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dispute, the parties amicably settled the matter by agreeing to pay and receive Rs. 110. This will certainly, in the circumstances, amount to a novation so far as the price payable is concerned. Merely because the ryots while disputing the price payable delivered the sugarcane produced by them would not be deemed to be a complete satisfaction and in compliance of the original agreement itself. We are satisfied on the facts that the entire sum of Rs. 110 per tonne paid represented the price payable for the sugarcane and no part of it was the subsidy and that, therefore, the disputed turnover was rightly included in the turnover. Accordingly, these tax revision cases fail and they are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each. T.C. No. 414 of 1971. The facts in this case are almost identical except that the assessee is different. For the reasons stated above, this tax revision case also fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 162 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Assistant Commissioner. In connection with this question, although the Tribunal has not determined the same, there are some observations in the judgment of the Tribunal, which suggest that the Tribunal was prima facie inclined to take the view that even the department could appeal against an adverse decision by the Assistant Commissioner. Although we do entertain some doubt about the correctness of this view, we do not propose to consider this question in this case because the Tribunal has not determined the same and this question has not been seriously canvassed before us. Moreover, as we are taking a view in favour of the department, even apart from the aforesaid contention urged by the department before the Tribunal, we see no necessity of going into this question. In the result, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The assessee must pay to the Commissioner the costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 161 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment which is connected with the generation of electricity. Commutator does not consume electricity. It only generates it though of a particular species. It is, therefore, different from the category of electrical goods and forms the class of goods known as electrical equipment as defined in Notification No. ST-7096/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the negative, against the Sales Tax Commissioner and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings on the strength of such documents produced in the course of his assessment proceedings or in appeal or revision proceedings arising therefrom. There is no statutory obligation in a dealer to so preserve these documents, and to hold otherwise on the grounds of an implied obligation or as a rule of prudence would run counter to commonsense and notions of justice, equity and good conscience. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question submitted to us in the negative. Looking to the fact that in this particular case, the department chose not to issue any notice of hearing in respect of the returns filed by the assessees until after the lapse of four years in respect of the assessment year ending on 31st March, 1949, and after the lapse of three years in respect of the assessment year ending on 31st March, 1950, in our opinion, the fair order of costs would be that each party should bear and pay his own costs of the reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 159 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s or occupations and can also be described by some other name. 7.. In the cases before us, the Tribunal has found that the tractors sold were designed and manufactured for agricultural purposes and that they were commonly used in farming work, though in a small fraction of cases of the total sales, the purchasers used the tractors for non-agricultural purposes. The tractors sold were manufactured under a licence for manufacture of agricultural tractors. The Price Control Order, which statutorily fixed the price of tractors describes them as agricultural machinery. Applying the principles discussed above to the facts found by the Tribunal, it is clear that all sales of tractors in all these cases were sales of agricultural machinery falling within the words of exemption in entry 44. For these reasons, I agree that question No. (1), referred to us in all these cases, should be answered in the negative as proposed by my Lord the Chief Justice. Question answered in the negative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the petitioner was required to pay was on the sale transactions of the oil extracted from groundnut and linseed oil. Those squarely fall within the terms of the present entry, for, the oils so sold are vegetable oils and are not essential oils as understood in common parlance. Once we reach this conclusion, all other submissions advanced by the learned counsel merit no further consideration, for, the taxing statutes cannot be construed on the basis of submissions, which have reference to slippery submissions of general policy or of implications arising therefrom, as was contended by the learned counsel. The object of tax impost being clearly defined and the taxing provision makes it liable to tax, such other debate is impermissible. We do, therefore, find that the orders made are perfectly legal and within the terms of the statute of sales tax. The petition has no merit and the same would stand dismissed. There would, however, be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 157 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... new commodity. We have heard Sri B.D. Agarwal, Chief Standing Counsel. He has placed reliance on a decision reported in Goel Industries Private Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sales Tax1971 U.P.T.C. 796. The test applied in this case was of common experience. There is no evidence on the record to show that the oil underwent some change by addition of scent. The question whether the hair-oil sold by the assessee as a result of addition of scent became a new commercial commodity, applying the test of user or common experience, is essentially a question of fact. In the absence of any positive material, we do not think that the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is erroneous. We answer the question in the negative against the Commissioner, Sales Tax, and in favour of the assessee by saying that in the circumstances of the case mixing of scents in ordinary til oil does not amount to manufacture of perfumed hair-oil. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 156 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rejection of the declaration in its totality where more than one transaction is comprised in a declaration and exceeds Rs. 5,000. These rules have been framed in order to give effect to the provision of section 8(1) and (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which have been enacted for the benefit of a registered dealer who sells goods to another such dealer and should, therefore, be construed in such a manner as to give relief to the assessee. Since two of the transactions were of the total value of less than Rs. 5,000, the declaration in form C was valid in respect of these transactions, and the assessee could claim benefit of the declaration in respect of these transactions. The view taken by the Judge (Revisions) appears to be correct. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee, and against the department. As none has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 155 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ilai ke sooti dhage . Sooti is yarn and dhage is-thread. It is on this basis contended that thread was described as yarn. We see no substance in this contention. The Hindi version merely describes the thing. Instead of using the Hindi equivalent word of cotton , it has chosen to describe it as made out of yarn. For the reasons given above, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel and we are of the opinion that cotton sewing thread on cops and cones is an entirely different item from cotton yarn on cops and cones . In this view of the matter the commodity known as cotton sewing thread on cops and cones is not entitled to any exemption under the notification dated 31st March, 1956, for the relevant years in question. We, therefore, answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the department. The respondent will be entitled to one set of costs only in these three references, which are assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1976 (1) TMI 154 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed, nor can the order imposing liability for tax be assailed on the ground that the assessing authority had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. In State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty 1966 17 S.T.C. 465 (S.C.)., it has been observed by the Supreme Court that though there is an element of guess-work in a best judgment assessment, it shall not be a wild one, but shall have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. In this case, as the best judgment assessment was made not on the basis of any material but on a capricious surmise unsupported by any relevant material, the same could not be sustained. For the reasons aforesaid, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners having succeeded this rule is made absolute. The orders of assessment complained of as well as Certificate Case No. 49 S.T. (TL) 67/68 are set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Oral prayer for stay is refused. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (1) TMI 153 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the exercise of the power of revision under sub- section (3) of section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi-hereinafter called the Act-is subject to the period of limitation provided in sub-section (2a) of section 11 or section 11-A of the said Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There was no undue or unreasonable delay made by the Commissioner. It may be stated here that an appeal has to be filed by an assessee within the prescribed time and so also a time-limit has been prescribed for the assessee to move in revision. The appellate or the revisional powers in an appeal or revision filed by an assessee can be exercised in due course. No time-limit has been prescribed for it. It may well be that for an exercise of the suo motu power of revision also, the revisional authority has to initiate the proceeding within a reasonable time. Any unreasonable delay in exercise may affect its validity. What is a reasonable time, however, will depend upon the facts of each case
-
1976 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the iron and steel scrap, out of which the manufactured goods sought to be subjected to sales tax?
Held that:- On an amendment of section 14(iv) of the Central Act, serial No. 4 of the Second Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Act was also correspondingly amended so as to reproduce the sixteen items found in section 14(iv) of the Central Act. Hence, the decision of these cases really depends on an interpretation of section 14 of the Central Act, which we have already given above. Other provisions only fortify our conclusion.
The result is that we allow these appeals. We set aside the orders of the High Court and restore the orders of the assessing authorities in cases giving rise to Civil Appeals Nos. 880-883 of 1971. In cases out of which Civil Appeals Nos. 58-59 of 1971 arise, we set aside the judgment of the High Court but maintain its order dismissing the writ petitions and order that the assessing authorities will now proceed to determine such questions of fact and law as still survive for determination after the decision given above of the question considered by us.
-
1976 (1) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... ars later. I have also considered whether the application should be returned for representation, but I find that the ground on which I am rejecting the application does not strictly fall within the provisions of Order 7, rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, I have been referred to some reported judgments, in which a challenge to a voluntary liquidation has been sustained before the company court. None of those proceedings were under section 446 of the Act. It is quite possible that the petitioner may be able to maintain a petition under some other provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, or under some other law for the purpose of disputing the validity of the winding up. I, therefore, give liberty to the petitioner to move any other proceedings that he may be advised for enforcing the right claimed in the application. This liberty will not in any way extend the limitation otherwise available to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed, but without costs.
-
1976 (1) TMI 135 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... intainable as that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. Therefore, I am making the following order The winding-up petition is admitted. But I will give the company a chance if they are so inclined to be honest and maintain the commercial morality and probity of a transport company and pay the petitioning creditor s advocate the sum of Rs. 6,060 together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent, per annum from 1st of October, 1972, until payment and assessed cost mentioned in the said decree dated the 18th of October, 1972, within 16th of February, 1976, together with an assessed cost of this application being 30 G.Ms., the winding-up petition would remain permanently stayed. In case the company fails to pay the said amounts as directed, the winding-up petition will be advertised once in Amrita Bazar Patrika, once in Basumati and once in the Calcutta Gazette after 16th of February, 1976, and the matter to appear in the list on the 29th of March, 1976.
|
