|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 155 Records
-
1981 (11) TMI 178
... ...
... ... ..... (original). 3. Government consider that the proper course would have seen to give the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to remove the deficiencies/defects noticed in their appeal and thereafter to dispose of the appeal on its merits. Government therefore remand the case to the Appellate Collector for going into the merits of the case after getting the necessary formalities completed by the petitioners so as to remove the defects noticed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 177
... ...
... ... ..... of manufacture since a new and distinguishable product comes into existence, therefore the contention that no duty is leviable on the converted type of tracing paper is not tenable. 3. As regards the question of grant of set off the duty paid on the base paper, Government agree with the Appellate Collector that the petitioner ought to have produced proof of payment of duty on the base paper and also followed the Rule 56A procedure before they could get the benefit of set off. 4. In view of the above the Government uphold the Order-In-Appeal and reject the revision application.
-
1981 (11) TMI 176
... ...
... ... ..... which is the subject of this appeal has arisen from wire. Copper wire is not liable to Central excise duty under sub-item of 26A CET. Copper wire would therefore, fall under some other item of CET. It could be item 68 or 33-B(ii) of CET. There is nothing in the notification to conclusively lead one to infer that the word the said copper’ appearing in clause (b) of the aforesaid notification refers to copper specified in clause (a) of the said notification and not to the opening part. The appellants plea that the word or’ after clause (a) of the said notification lends support to this view. The appellants plea that earlier his appeals on identical goods have been allowed and that the Customs House has not charged duty on copper wires “berry” of Nari Specification is also sustainable. In view of the foregoing the order imposing the levy c.v. duty on the impugned goods viz., copper scrap Berry’ of Nari Specification is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 175
Whether the failure of the State Government of Punjab to forward the representation made by the detenu to the Central Government for revocation of his order of detention under Section 11 of the Act with reasonable despatch renders his continued detention invalid?
Held that:- In the present case, there was, therefore, no denial of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act. There is nothing but the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government and that by itself is not sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. The detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the State Government, i.e., the detaining authority as well as of the right of making a representation to the Central Government for revocation of the order of detention under Section 11 of the Act The representations that he made were duly considered by the State Government and the Central Government. The contention that the unexplained delay on the part of the State Government is sufficient to invalidate the order of detention can hardly be accepted. The Court must look at the substance of the matter and not act on mere technicality. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 174
... ...
... ... ..... of what, in reality and in substance, is the type of goods which fits in with the description given in the statute or in the statutory instrument, as the case may be. We are satisfied that eucalyptus is not firewood. Its sale is not, therefore, exempt under the notification. This means that the sale is taxable. The sale of eucalyptus in this case has been actually charged in this assessment at the rate of 4 per cent under multi-point tax. It seems to us that it is taxable in the hands of the assessee at single point, at the rate of 5 per cent, in accordance with the explanation to entry 84 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Hence, while holding that the sale of eucalyptus is not exempt from sales tax, but chargeable to tax, we cannot bring ourselves to say that it has been taxed aright in the assessment which has been made and confirmed in this case. The result is that this revision is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 173
... ...
... ... ..... not agree with the counsel that merely because pepper purchased by an exporter is subject to process, the process being one of cleaning and making it presentable for the export market, it will cease to be the same as it was. Pepper does not undergo a process which changes its character so as to render it a different commodity in commerce. What is purchased by the exporter was pepper and what is sold by him is pepper. Garbling, as rightly presented by the Appellate Tribunal, is a process which makes it fit to be introduced into the export market. Even according to the department as pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal the process of garbling involves only work such as stone picking, dust removing, washing, drying, oil polishing, grading, packing, etc., which are only incidental to the presentation of the goods in proper form so that the goods may sell in the export market. There is no substance in the contention raised by the State in this tax revision case. It is dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 172
... ...
... ... ..... eck concealment of turnover but it also serves the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the customers. In Pyarelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 28 STC 130 this question was considered by this Court and it was held that in addition to the penalty imposed under section 43(1) of the Act the dealer was liable to penalty under section 27(2) of the Act also for not issuing cash memos or maintaining the counterfoils of the bills of sales. 8.. We therefore hold that the Board of Revenue (Tribunal) was not justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3,000 imposed under section 27(2) of the Act with regard to the assessment year 1964-65 and Rs. 2,000 with regard to the assessment year 1965-66 on the ground that penalty had already been imposed under section 19(1) and under section 43(1) of the Act for the assessment years respectively. Both the questions are answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. 9.. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 171
... ...
... ... ..... buys firewood requires them to be shaved and debarked. Purchasers may desire the wood to be cut to size. But that is all. There may be eccentric sellers and eccentric buyers who may indulge their fancies in specialities in firewood. But that, again, is not the test. Where the wood is not, in the normally accepted commercial practice, firewood, and more especially, where the wood is sold and purchased subject to specifications which conduce the wood to particular purposes other than fuel, which is the case in the present two revisions, the goods sold cannot be regarded as firewood. We accordingly hold that the exemption relating to firewood cannot be extended to the cases under revision. The wood sold in both the cases is eucalyptus blue-gum, which, as a commercial commodity, is only pulpwood, whether you call it by that name or not. This would be the case with wattle wood also. Both the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (one set).
-
1981 (11) TMI 170
... ...
... ... ..... ally what the petitioner seeks is a declaration from this Court that the respondents dealing with the transactions of the petitioner, referred to above, should be directed to act within the ambit and circumscription of the concerned statute. Such a relief cannot be granted. As pointed out above, the petitioner has not come forward praying for redress and relief with reference to any particular transaction. As such, I do not feel obliged to countenance such a prayer and issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for. However, it is needless to point out that if, in fact, the goods transported in lorries by the petitioner from its Bangalore factory to its other branch offices or godowns are only stock transfers and not sales, it will not be competent for the second respondent or any other authority to insist upon the payment of the taxes under the Act, in the course of such transfers. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 169
... ...
... ... ..... ure B, it is not possible for me to record a definite finding that the facts were collected after the said assessment order was passed. In this view of the matter, the only course which can be adopted is that the revisional authority should be directed to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. In the reply, it has been pleaded that the revisional authority shall pass its order only on the material which was before the Assessing Authority. In view of what has been stated above, the revisional authority is directed to proceed in accordance with law so as not to take any material into consideration which material was not on the record of the case when the assessment order was passed. Keeping these observations in view, the revisional authority may proceed with reassessment in accordance with law. No other point has been pressed before me. For the reasons recorded above, both these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (11) TMI 168
... ...
... ... ..... n the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Sales Tax Tribunal shall now dispose of the appeal in accordance with the opinion given by us. No costs. C.W.P. No. 3095 of 1973. Mr. Ahluwalia has raised a preliminary objection that since the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available under the Act, we should not grant it any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Since the Sales Tax Tribunal had earlier given a considered decision adverse to the petitioner, the remedies available under the statute could not be regarded as effective. Since we have come to the conclusion that a belt pulley constitutes an agricultural implement we are not inclined to accept this preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ahluwalia. This petition is accordingly allowed and the assessment order dated 23rd May, 1973, so far as it relates to belt pulley is hereby quashed. Reference answered in the affirmative and petition allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... tice under sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. In the light of the above-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on best judgment basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 166
... ...
... ... ..... and compelled to pay the maximum penalty. Hence, under the circumstances above-stated, it cannot be said that his so-called consent or statement could still be relied upon by the respondent, and as if the order passed cannot no longer call for any fresh consideration. Therefore, without reference to the so-called consent given by the petitioner, it is now incumbent upon the respondent to consider the matter, on what has since been made out by the orders of the Tribunal and that of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, in the aforesaid two orders and proceed to find out whether in the circumstances of the case necessarily call for imposition of any penalty whatsoever. In so doing, it has to give reasons as to why there is need for imposing any penalty and also justify the quantum of penalty that is being imposed. Such consideration could be only in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. In this view all these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... this Court should decline to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to consider as to whether a reference lies against the impugned order. We may assume that it is so. That, however, is not sufficient in the circumstances of the present case to deter us from exercising the powers under article 226 of the Constitution, for this Court entertained the petition in 1976 without any objection on the ground of alternative remedy. It would not now be equitable, after the expiry of half a decade to throw out the petition on the ground of an alternative remedy, for by this time the reference application would be hopelessly beyond time. We are satisfied that the order of the revising authority is incorrect, and deserved to be quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The revising authority is directed to dispose of the restoration application on merits in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 164
... ...
... ... ..... pression glassware could be applied or confined to such articles only. While arriving at this finding, he considered the various affidavits filed by the Bombay dealers and the assessee to the effect that in commercial circle glass sheets had a different connotation than glassware. He also found that not only these were two different items but there were different merchants associations dealing in it and if a customer wanted to purchase glass sheet then he had to approach a different shopkeeper than the one who carried on business in glasswares. He found that not only the affidavit but even the trading community or Government of India drew the distinction between glass sheet and glassware. They were not taken as synonymous. On these findings, therefore, there could be no other answer than that was given by the revising authority that glass sheets were not glassware. In the result this revision fails and is dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... to the return filed by the petitioner, it appears to us that the concept of such a liability must be comprehended in the background of all the relevant provisions of the Act. When the Act, by section 5(5) expressly provides that no liability to tax shall arise in respect of a total turnover in any year if it is less than Rs. 25,000, it is hardly conceivable that a return of a total turnover of Rs. 7,166.14 respecting which section 5(5) undisputedly applied, can be said to generate any admitted liability to tax in law. The successive appellate authorities, if we may say so figuratively, counted the trees and missed the wood. 8.. We therefore allow this revision petition, set aside the orders in the first and second appeals, and remit the petitioner s appeal to the first appellate authority with the direction to consider and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law without reference to the bar under section 20(3) of the Act. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 162
... ...
... ... ..... file this claim for adjustment along with all supporting materials before the Sales Tax Officer, Firozabad, within a period of two months. On the aforesaid claim and evidence being filed the Sales Tax Officer, Firozabad, should dispose it of within a period of one month thereafter. The petitioners should deposit the amount determined within a period of two months from the date of the determination. On the deposit of the money due after adjustments, attachment of the petitioners properties should be lifted. The petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1981 (11) TMI 161
... ...
... ... ..... ts as part of the estate of the deceased partner as an heir. This clearly postulated an enquiry and the affording of an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in that direction. This conceivably was not done. 6.. As a result of the foregoing discussion, these petitions are partially allowed but only to the extent that the Assessing Authority, Kaithal, will determine whether the petitioner has received any assets as an heir from the deceased partner and if so, then out of the same he may recover the outstanding arrears from him, debarred from arresting the petitioner in the pursuit of such recovery in accordance with the rule laid down by this Court in S. Ujjal Singh v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar 1967 20 STC 35. It goes without saying that the other partners are and would remain liable to meet the demand and the venue of recovery from them remains open to the Assessing Authority. These petitions are accepted on these terms. No costs. Petitions Partly allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 160
... ...
... ... ..... . Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned notice (annexure A) has been issued during the course of proceedings for the assessment of tax against the petitioner for the year 1971-72. If this is so-as it is-then the case of the petitioner is clearly supported by the above-noted judgment of this Court in Kishan Chand s case 1965 16 STC 521 1965 67 PLR 465 wherein on similar facts it has been ruled that unless there is a proper or lawful order transferring the petitioner s assessment proceedings or file from the records of the appropriate authorities, i.e., the Assessing Authority, who is dealing with the case in the normal course, the additional hand who, though had been conferred jurisdiction throughout the State, cannot deal with that. Thus, keeping in view the ratio of this judgment, this impugned notice (annexure A) cannot possibly be sustained. I, therefore, quash the same and allow the petition to that extent. I, however, make no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1981 (11) TMI 159
... ...
... ... ..... arliament itself held that the meaning given to cotton fabrics in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act should be the same as was given by it to the commodity in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the absence of any words of limitation or extension, the same meaning should appropriately be attributed to the words cotton fabrics for purposes of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. More so, when the Commissioner of Sales Tax himself feels that cotton-coated fabric is comprised within the entry in that regard in the notification dated 25th November, 1958. In conclusion, it must be held that the view taken by the Tribunal that cotton-coated fabrics were exempt from the levy of sales tax on account of the notification dated 25th November, 1958, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The application in revision has to be held to be bereft of merits and as deserving rejection. It is dismissed as such. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
