|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 236 Records
-
1981 (1) TMI 235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wn by the Tribunal while remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is too narrow. The Tribunal ought to have laid down the tests mentioned above and it ought to have given directions in conformity therewith. The Tribunal also ought to have given directions to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax for determining which of the transactions of the respondents amounted to sales within the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to earlier. 7.. Accordingly the question which is referred to us by the Tribunal is answered as follows The Tribunal is only partly correct in holding as it did. It ought to have laid down the tests as discussed above in our judgment and it ought to have given directions in conformity with those tests. 8.. The Tribunal will, therefore, now dispose of the case in the light of the observations made above. The applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 300. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (1) TMI 234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty in the assessment proceedings, if not also with illegality. In the case of Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay 1968 21 S.T.C. 383 at 395-396 (S.C.)., the Supreme Court held Whenever a power is conferred on an authority to revise an order, the authority is entitled to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order and to pass such suitable orders as the authority may think fit in the circumstances of the particular case before it. All that the Assistant Commissioner had done in this case was to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order in question and this was, therefore, a case in which the jurisdiction under section 57 was properly exercised. In the result, we answer the question submitted to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The respondents will pay to the applicant the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 300. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (1) TMI 233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fected within the Union Territory of Delhi as contended by the assessees, The question with which we are concerned was not before the court and did not arise for its consideration and was not considered by the court, and this authority, therefore, furnishes us no guidance in deciding this case. The next decision of the Supreme Court which was relied upon by Mr. Jetly was Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 47 S.T.C. 1 (S.C.). Here again the question was whether the sales effected by the assessees were intra-State sales or inter-State sales. This is not a question with which we are concerned. The points which fall for determination in the present reference were not before the Supreme Court and were not decided by it. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessees and against the department. The applicant will pay to the respondents the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 300. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1981 (1) TMI 232 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntioned by Sri Venkatarama Reddy. No arguments were advanced on the contention that entry 145 violates the freedom of trade under article 19(1)(g) and that it cannot be considered as reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each case. Sri T. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, makes an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We see no substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the oral request is rejected. He also makes an oral request to direct that the interim order in the stay petitions may continue so as to enable the petitioners to apply for special leave to the Supreme Court and obtain appropriate orders. The interim order made during the pendency of the writ petitions in the respective stay petitions will continue for a period of two months. Petitions dismissed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 231 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ute or the Rules in which the notice should be issued calling upon the assessee to show cause with reference to the proposed assessment of the escaped turnover. In such a context, we are unable to hold that the notice must actually mention the turnover alleged to have escaped and sought to be assessed. As a matter of fact, the very idea of giving a notice is to call upon the person concerned to produce whatever material is in his possession with regard to the proposed assessment, and as a result of such proposal the turnover may differ from the turnover mentioned in the notice. Under these circumstances, we do not consider that it is a statutory requirement that the notice contemplated under section 16(1)(a) of the Act (in fact, the section merely refers to a reasonable opportunity) must mention the actual amount alleged to have escaped and proposed to be assessed. No other point was urged before us. Hence the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 230 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... these metals only, including sheets and circles used in the manufacture of brasswares. The rate remains the same and all that has been done by this notification is that clauses (a) and (b) of entry 2 have now been amalgamated in one entry with a view to simplify it. Anyhow, as noted above, brass scrap is not covered by entry 1 of the schedule to Notification No. ST-II-4949 dated 30th May, 1975, and the disputed turnover could not be taxed accordingly thereunder. After the revisional orders there is no dispute left in regard to the acceptance of books and the disclosed turnover in respect of utensils. The dispute is confined only to the taxability of the turnover in respect of brass scrap and the same, as held above, is not taxable under entry No. 1 of the schedule to the notification dated 30th May, 1975. In the result, therefore, these revisions fail and are dismissed. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 but of one set only. Petitions dismissed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 229 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 and, therefore, the petitioner should have filed three writ petitions. The objection raised for the State has to be sustained. However, as a single petition has already been filed and registered, it is sufficient to direct the petitioner to furnish deficit court-fee of Rs. 200. 8.. In the result, we hold that the orders impugned in these two petitions were made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer without the authority of law and the same are liable to be quashed and make the following order (i) Rule made absolute. (ii) The impugned orders and notices dated 18th August, 1975, marked as exhibits D, D-1, E, E-1 and F and F-1 in W.P. No. 7025 of 1975 and the notice dated 10th August, 1976, marked as exhibit B in W.P. No. 7387 of 1976 are quashed. (iii) The petitioner shall pay deficit court-fee of Rs. 200 in W.P. No. 7025 of 1975. The writ shall be issued in this petition after payment of the deficit court-fee. (iv) No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1981 (1) TMI 228 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 970 26 S.T.C. 480., and of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. P.C. Majumdar and Co. Ltd. 1979 44 S.T.C. 154. Reference was made on behalf of the respondent to the decision of the Madras High Court in Shansshia Oil Mills v. State of Madras 1967 20 S.T.C. 481. But on going through the decision we find that the only point decided by the court was as to whether a photostat copy of the declaration could be filed at an appellate stage the question whether the filing of a photostat copy would be sufficient compliance with the rules was left to be decided by the Tribunal. For the above reasons we answer the question referred to us and as modified by us earlier in the negative and by saying that the assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate of taxation under section 8(1) in respect of sales of the turnover of Rs. 2,41,555.68. The reference is answered accordingly. But in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (1) TMI 227 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er the Commissioner had the power to revise the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner. The contention advanced before the court was that the Deputy Commissioner could not be considered to be an authority appointed to assist the Commissioner. This contention was negatived by this Court by observing that under the provisions of the Act the Deputy Commissioner exercised powers of the first appellate authority independently. In the instant case, as we have observed, the Deputy Commissioner exercised powers as a delegate of the Commissioner. In our opinion, therefore, the Board was right in holding that the Additional Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 39(1) of the Act. 5.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (1) TMI 226 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and 35 of 1973 decided on 18th December, 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. India Neon Signs 1981 48 S.T.C. 439., that neon lights put up for the purpose of advertisements cannot be described as electrical goods because the first test, referred to earlier, was not satisfied. These decisions furnish a certain amount of analogy, and show that such expressions should be interpreted not too literally but in such a way as to reflect the common understanding thereof in, the trade and to which the entry refers. Looking at the matter from this point of view, we agree with the learned District Judge that road traffic signalling equipment and blinkers are not understood either in popular language or in commercial circles as being electrical goods. We, therefore, answer the question that has been referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As the Commissioner has failed, he will pay the costs of the reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (1) TMI 225 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecision in State of Tamil Nadu v. The Hindu relied upon by the learned counsel for the department is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the present case. In that case the newsprint sold by the assessee and held as exigible to tax was stock-in-trade of the assessee. Ordinarily it was to be sold in the shape of the newspaper printed and published by the assessee and after discontinuance of the said paper it was sold in the form of newsprint. In the present case the assessee sold his fixed assets on the closure of his business and it cannot be said that this transaction was in the course of trade, commerce or adventure in the nature of trade and commerce and so it cannot be included in the term business . Our answer to question No. (3), therefore, referred to us is in the affirmative and against the department. 13.. The reference Is answered accordingly. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (1) TMI 224 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax as well. The assessee charged sales tax on the turnover relating to this rubberisation of the wheels and it also gave the certificates as stated earlier. We may safely, therefore, presume that the parties also intended the transaction to be a sale and not a works contract. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the entire turnover in dispute is liable for sales tax. T.C. No. 266 of 1976 related to additional tax which is consequential on our holding that the turnover is liable to sales tax. Accordingly, all the four revision petitions are allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The assessee has not appeared either in person or through a counsel and therefore we did not have the assistance of the arguments of the respondent. We consider however that this is a fit case where we have to direct payment of costs to the petitioner. Accordingly we direct the respondent to pay the costs of the petitioner. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set). Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 223 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under section 19(1) of the Act is that he must act in good faith as held by the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Mahaliram Ramjidas 1940 8 I.T.R. 442 (P.C.)., while considering a similar provision under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. We see no reason to differ from the view taken in these decisions. The Board has not in the instant case found that the action of the assessing authority in initiating proceedings under section 19(1) of the Act was not bona fide. In our opinion, therefore, the assessment of the dealer could be reopened under section 19(1) of the Act and the declarations in form XII which had been accepted originally by the assessing authority could be rejected on the ground that they were defective. 4.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us 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.
-
1981 (1) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. Admittedly, in this case, after the orders of assessment were passed, the petitioners did not prefer appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner within the prescribed time. Obviously they did not intend to prefer appeals. Only after the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1978 42 S.T.C. 386 (S.C.)., the appellants started filing the appeals in question and consequently the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in holding that the petitioners had not established sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed period, because, a judgment pronounced by a court long after the expiry of the period of limitation cannot be taken advantage of for filing an appeal with a petition to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the tax revision cases fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 221 - SUPREME COURT
Whether assessee runs a hotel wherein food and drinks are served to the visitors?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The only finding recorded in this case that the assessee runs a hotel wherein food and drinks are served to the visitors is not sufficient.
Thus set aside the impugned order and send the case back to the Sales Tax Officer concerned for a fresh assessment according to law following the guidelines appearing in the judgment of this Court disposing of the review petition in the Northern India Caterers' case [1978 (12) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
-
1981 (1) TMI 213 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a true construction of entry No. 15 of Notification No. ST-II-4949/X-10 (2)-74 dated May 30, 1975, issued under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the negotiated sale of a thermal power plant by appellant No. 1 to appellant No. 2 is exigible to sales tax thereunder?
Held that:- The appeal is allowed and the view of the lower authorities is set aside and the sale in question is declared to be not exigible to tax under entry No. 15 of the concerned notification dated May 30, 1975.
-
1981 (1) TMI 203 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1981 (1) TMI 202 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ore me, beyond any doubt, that the company is insolvent and unable to pay its debts as hereinbefore discussed, both to the petitioning-creditors and also to the supporting creditors who are appearing in this application at the time of the hearing of the winding-up petition. Therefore, I must hold that the company is unable to pay its debt and there is no substance in the defence sought to be raised either in law or in fact. In the result, I am making the following order There will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) which will also include all costs of the stay application and costs of appeal. The official liquidator to take possession of the books, papers, documents, and assets of the company forthwith on a signed copy of the minutes and the petitioning-creditors to assist the official liquidator to enable him to take possession in terms of the order. The official liquidator and the petitioning-creditors to act on a signed copy of the minutes. Stay asked for refused.
-
1981 (1) TMI 201 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Meetings and proceedings – Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served, Removal of Director
-
1981 (1) TMI 199 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Cost and expenses payable out of assets in a winding-up by Court ... ... ... ... ..... ence for the claim made by the petitioner. To decide the question as to what sums would be due in the ultimate analysis is not possible in this summary proceeding. No doubt, the fact of the issuance of the cheques and the same being dishonoured has been established. That, however, has been explained by the 2nd respondent. In any event, I am satisfied, prima facie, that it is a matter which can more appropriately be agitated in a properly framed suit in a civil court than be agitated in this summary proceeding as to the liability of the respondents. This is not a fit case in which this court should exercise its discretion under section 433 of the Act and proceed to make an order for winding-up the 1st respondent-company. Therefore, the petition is rejected with liberty reserved for the petitioner to recover the sums from the respondents in a properly framed suit in a civil action in accordance with law. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
