|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 145 Records
-
1978 (11) TMI 147
... ...
... ... ..... t of rayon fabrics and, so far as the second sari was concerned, it contained as much as 17.80 per cent of cotton. Even assuming that this subbreak up can be looked into for purposes of finding out whether the articles in question fell within the relevant entries, even then, we do not think that they will satisfy the test which we have indicated above for purposes of claiming exemption under the relevant entries, inasmuch as in the first sari the mixed material is silk, the basic material of viscose rayon should be 60 per cent as prescribed under item 22(ii), and the second sari had admittedly less than 40 per cent of basic material of cotton prescribed under item 19. The result, therefore, is that we accept this reference of the revenue and answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... the contract was, therefore, the delivery of the bricks after manufacture. We are of the opinion that these observations apply to the contract in the present case with great force. The property in the ballast was entirely of the assessee. They have to manufacture the same and stack them for facilitating delivery. Therefore, the conclusion which is inescapable is that the essence of the contract was the delivery of the ballast after manufacture and the labour involved is only incidental to the supply of the ballast. After a careful consideration of the entire material placed and the various decisions cited before us, we have no hesitation in holding that the contracts in question are only for the sale of the ballast and not for work and labour. The contractors, therefore, were rightly assessed on the turnover of the supply of the ballast. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs, one set in W.P. No. 3645 of 1971. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petitions dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 145
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal will be restricted to the evidence on the record and it may not be entitled to take additional evidence. That may result in injustice. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay 1970 26 S.T.C. 263 (S.C.)., and Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. 1970 78 I.T.R. 474 (S.C.). , to decline to answer the question on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider and decide in proper light and perspective and on the basis of the evidence on record the question whether the ahar was a mechanically produced cattle-feed, properly so-called. It will be open to the Tribunal to dispose the appeal under section 69(4) in the light of the observations made by this Court after determining the questions which ought to have been decided. The reference accordingly stands disposed of, with no order as to costs. Reference not answered.
-
1978 (11) TMI 144
... ...
... ... ..... the context of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, we think it appropriate to decline to answer the questions on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider and decide the question whether the articles or goods in question in which the assessee deals are wire rods. It will be open to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal under section 69(4) in the light of the observations made by this Court after determining the said question which ought to have been decided. We wish to clarify that the only question which requires to be determined under section 69(4) is whether the said articles or goods are wire rods. If the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, the Tribunal will dispose of the appeal on the basis that those goods are covered by entry 27. If the answer to the said question is in the negative, the appeal of the assessee must obviously fail. Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1978 (11) TMI 143
... ...
... ... ..... ng of a competition or some event like completion of training at a particular institution. We cannot conceive of a person normally going to a shop and purchasing trophies, shields, crests and mementoes like these for the purpose of decorating his drawing room. These articles are normally purchased for being presented to persons who have succeeded in some competitive events or have attained some particular distinction or achieved a particular rank. The main purpose of giving these articles is to commemorate an event or to honour an achievement and not for the purpose of decoration. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the said articles could not be said to be ornamental metalware within the meaning of the said expression in entry 13 of Schedule E to the said Act. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The applicant must pay to the assessee the costs of these references. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 142
... ...
... ... ..... deals with the question of certified copies of documents, reads as follows Any person who is a party to a proceeding under the Act or under these rules may apply to the appropriate authority having jurisdiction in respect of such proceeding or having the custody of the records pertaining thereto, for a certified copy of a document produced or filed in such proceeding or of an order passed by such authority. This would again show that an order is not regarded as being included in the term document . In view of this, in our opinion, the authority to receive any notice or document in connection with the assessment proceedings did not include an authority to receive the assessment orders. In our view, the Tribunal was correct in the conclusion at which it arrived. In the result, the question referred to us in all the three references is answered in the affirmative. The applicant to pay to the respondents the costs of these three references. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 141
... ...
... ... ..... alty will come to be imposed causing hardship even in bonafide cases. In fact, this very case is an instance on the point for no penalty is leviable. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in the instant case is correct, namely, that since fireclay purchased by the assessee against certificate in form 19 was used by it in the manufacture of stoneware pipes, firebricks and lime, which were ultimately sold against form C to the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd., which is a certified electrical undertaking, without payment of any tax, the assessee was liable to pay purchase tax under section 16 in respect of the goods covered by the certificate in form 19. The question referred to us by the Tribunal is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the, assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the State of Gujarat. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 140
... ...
... ... ..... lt with the objects and reasons of the said U.P. Act, which, inter alia, stated These judgments have created legal difficulties in the assessment and collection of tax on the aforesaid commodities. Besides, the dealers have started applying for the refund of tax already collected on these commodities. This will have serious repercussions on the State s revenue. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend sections 3-A and 3-D to provide for the levy of tax on the aforesaid commodities as seperate items. It is also proposed to validate the past levy, assessment and collection of tax on the above commodities.......... 3.. Challenge to section 7 of the U.P. Act validating earlier levies, notwithstanding the previous judgments to the contrary, was rejected by their Lordships. Respectfully following Hira Lal Rattan Lal s case 1973 31 S.T.C. 178 at 183 (S.C.)., the present petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. SANDHAWALIA, C.J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 139
... ...
... ... ..... the Amendment and Validating Act, the Deputy Commissioner s order was rendered invalid. That will obviously amount to a mistake apparent from the record. For rectification of such a mistake, the only remedy was to invoke or take recourse to section 17 of the Act. No such action has been taken for rectification of the mistake. On the other hand, the assessing authority has sought to revise the order of the superior authority, which is beyond his jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue, therefore, rightly quashed the order of the assessing authority raising the demand and there is no scope for raising any question of law from the order of the Board of Revenue dated 7th March, 1977. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not see any justification to direct the Board to state the case and refer the question as mentioned in the application under section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The same is, therefore, hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Application rejected.
-
1978 (11) TMI 138
... ...
... ... ..... t might have thought fit as advised to specify different articles having regard to the nature and use of the articles. It would not, in our opinion, therefore, resolve the question with which we are concerned in the present reference. We have to construe the positive enactment made in section 13(1)(B) where the articles in question are consumable stores required in the manufacture of goods. The expression manufacture of goods has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as stated above. We do not find any express warrant in the main enactment of this section or a necessary implication in the context so as to justify us in agreeing with the Tribunal when it has taken a restrictive meaning of the term manufacture of taxable goods for sale . The result, therefore, is that we must answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 137
... ...
... ... ..... hich it was the ordinary business of the furriers. It was a contract for sale of chattel. It cannot be said that the contract in that case was for use of skill and labour to bring about the desired result. The finished article so prepared could well be sold to any other customer like any other garment in the usual course of the business. That case, therefore, is quite distinguishable. 7.. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 7th February, 1972 (annexure P-1), passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, in Revision Case No. 256/RYP/1971-72 and the one dated 30th January, 1970 (annexure P-2), passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, in Case No. 241 of 1969-70 are hereby quashed. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, shall now proceed to assess the turnover to sales tax afresh in the light of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 136
... ...
... ... ..... w of that State enjoy exemption and, similarly, goods, which are subjected to tax at a rate lower than four per cent, in the State where the assessment is to be made, have to pay a lower rate of tax. While interpreting the proviso to section 9 one cannot ignore this, as the immediate result of an assessment being made in one State would affect the tax liability. As the proviso relates to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer and has a direct relationship with the tax liability of the dealer, it cannot be put in the category of a procedural law. The Judge (Revisions) was right in holding that the assessee could not be assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in U.P. The first question is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of the answer given to the first question, the second question becomes academic and is returned unanswered. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (11) TMI 135
... ...
... ... ..... round the assessee s claim for deduction cannot be denied. It would neither be logical nor reasonable to insist on a claim for refund being made in the course of the assessment year during which the sale of the goods has been occasioned, when the goods themselves are returned and the claim for refund itself can arise only beyond the assessment year. The view that we take is supported by the two rulings of the Madras High Court in Madras Radiators and Pressings v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 37 S.T.C. 123. and Devi Films (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras 1961 12 S.T.C. 274., and by the ruling of the Andhra High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vauhini Pictures P. Ltd. 1962 13 S.T.C. 847. 6.. We allow this tax revision case and set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for passing consequential orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 134
... ...
... ... ..... ed chicken dealt in by the petitioner was neither canned, preserved, dried or dehydrated. Only in those forms meat is exempted from tax. There was no evidence to this effect because the petitioner himself did not originally claim any exemption for the dressed chicken. It was as an afterthought and at a later stage he raised this claim before the Deputy Commissioner when he sent a notice to the petitioner asking why the exemption given in respect of fresh milk should not be withdrawn. In view of this lack of evidence and also the conduct of the petitioner, when he did not originally claim exemption in respect of the dressed chicken, we do not think that this item deserves consideration at this stage. In the result, we are not inclined to accept the two contentions raised by Sri Sankaram while commending the tax revision case for our acceptance. The tax revision case is consequently dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 133
... ...
... ... ..... held that section 37 creates an absolute liability and the doctrine of mens rea has no place in it. We may mention that, prior to the decision in Ajit Mills case 1977 40 S.T.C. 497 (S.C.)., this Bench had taken the very same view in Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1977 40 S.T.C. 488. Apart from the five points dealt with above, no other point was urged or canvassed before us. We, therefore, find that the petitioners, who were registered dealers, had collected tax on transactions of sales of goods which were not exigible to tax and had thus contravened the provisions of section 46(2). For the reasons given above, we hold that the amounts wrongfully collected by the petitioners by way of tax were rightly ordered to be forfeited to the Government. The result is that these petitions fail and are dismissed and the rule issued in each of them is discharged. The petitioners will pay to the respondents the costs of these petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 132
... ...
... ... ..... iginal order of assessment and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction under section 19(1) of the Act to initiate proceedings for reassessment. But, in view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it must be held that if the Sales, Tax Officer had erroneously failed to assess any sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under the Act, it is a case of escaped assessment . The Tribunal has not found that the action of the Sales Tax Officer in initiating proceedings under section 19(1) of the Act was not bona fide. In these circumstances, the view of the Tribunal that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment under the provisions of section 19(1) of the Act cannot be upheld. 4.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us for opinion is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 131
... ...
... ... ..... of section 7. But that is not so. The purposes of the two registrations are altogether different. It, therefore, follows that if a person indulges in inter-State sale, he has to get himself registered under section 7(1) and if he fails to do so, he exposes himself to the penalties prescribed under the law. The Board of Revenue was altogether in error in holding that the registration under sub-section (2) of section 7 can be deemed to be registration under sub-section (1) thereof. 4.. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant (the assessee in the present case) has not obtained registration under section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and for his failure to apply and obtain registration under section 7(1) penalty could be imposed under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 5.. Consequently, our answer to the question is in the negative. As none appeared for the assessee, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 130
... ...
... ... ..... 5 of 1975 will stand allowed to the extent that the orders dated 26th July, 1975, on exhibits P5 to P7 revisions will stand quashed. We repeat that nothing said in this judgment should be understood as precluding the sales tax authorities, if so entitled and so advised, from proceeding to recover the penal interest in accordance with law. We affirm the finding of the learned Judge regarding exhibits P4 and P8 orders. The original petition will stand dismissed as far as these orders are concerned. There will be no order as to costs. 4.. We cannot help observing that this appeal seems really unnecessary. The learned Judge passed his judgment on the footing that exhibits P5 to P7 revisions were pending. They had been disposed of even when the learned Judge delivered judgment. It might have been enough to have the matter posted before the learned Judge to be spoken to , or to apply for review. Issue carbon copy-of this judgment to all counsel on usual terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1978 (11) TMI 129
... ...
... ... ..... effect and substance, a question whether the transactions were really inter-State sales effected by the assessee and whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that they were inter-State sales was justified. We cannot accede to this submission of the learned Advocate for the assessee since the question referred to us is on the assumption of the facts and circumstances of the case as found by the Tribunal to be correct. We have got to proceed on that basis since the assessee has not thought fit not only by not seeking a specific question about the perversity of the finding by praying for such a specific question but has accepted it in its application before the Tribunal to be correct. In that view of the matter, therefore, we have no other alternative but to answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 128
... ...
... ... ..... ases, sticking to the words of the taxing statute and asking ourselves the right questions, which the words of charge raise, might be the easiest and the most satisfactory way of arriving at solutions in tax cases. On the pertinent question in this case as to whether the amount of Rs. 10,16,857.32 is or is not to be included in the assessees sales turnover, we have examined not only the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, but also the relevant Rules under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, to find what fiscal character the said amount bears. And, for the reasons we have earlier set out, we must answer the question in the assessees favour, holding that the amount does not form part of their assessable turnover. This tax revision case is accordingly allowed. The assessing authority is directed to exclude the amount in question from the assessment for 1970-71. The respondent will pay the assessees costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
........
|
