|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 160 Records
-
1982 (5) TMI 178 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imself liable for penalty. The Tribunal has found that all that was contained in the notice served upon the applicant was that lie had not rendered proper co-operation at the time of the survey. The words used were these Sarvekshan dinank 2-9-78 ke samaya uchit sahyog nuheen diya hai. Obviously, the applicant was not called upon to explain any accusation about having obstructed or prevented an officer empowered under section 13 from performing any of his functions under the Act. The notice was, thus, not only vague but wholly unrelated to the accusation for which penalty was imposed upon the applicant. The imposition of penalty, in the circumstances, is unsustainable on account of the failure of the assessing authority to afford an opportunity to the applicant in terms of sub-section (3) of section 15-A of the Act. The Tribunal was, to that extent, right in the view taken by it. In consequence, the revision fails and is dismissed but parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 177 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this sub-section it shall be presumed that the goods were intended to be brought, imported or otherwise received into the State in connection with business unless the contrary is proved. If the petitioners subsequently despatch the goods brought into Uttar Pradesh to other States either by road or by rail, they can lead evidence to that effect and rebut the presumption that the goods were brought, imported or otherwise received into the State in connection with business in case sales tax is ought (sic) to be levied on them. In these petitions no averment has been made that on any occasion the vehicles of the petitioners were refused entry or their goods seized or any demand under the Act was made. As observed earlier, the petitioners are not at all concerned with section 28-B of the Act, and consequently, it is not open to them to challenge the validity of that provision or of rule 87. In our opinion the petitions are wholly misconceived and are hereby dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 176 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Nadu sales tax authorities and it is submitted that there is no question of any balance payable to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. As taxes have now been paid in both the States, on the same transactions, it is just and necessary that a direction may be made to the first respondent to refund the amount paid by the company for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77 in respect of the payments made to the Tamil Nadu sales tax authorities under the Central Sales Tax Act for the relevant years regarding the same transactions. The certificate is also produced. 3.. I am satisfied with the submission made. The petitioner is entitled to the modification and I therefore now direct that the respondents should refund the amounts paid by the petitioner-company to the Karnataka sales tax authorities in respect of the bus body building transactions for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77. My earlier order in this writ petition will stand modified accordingly.
-
1982 (5) TMI 175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ls within the ambit of section 11-A ibid. We are, therefore, of the view that the reassessment having been made after lapse of a period of three years is illegal. Regarding Reference No. 20 of 1975, no additional argument was raised by Mr. Narula except that the check memo had no relevancy for that period as the vehicles mentioned therein related to the assessment year 1957-58. The argument is plausible. The Chief Enforcement Officer took into consideration the check memo and material already mentioned above for revision of the order. Thus, his order relating to that period also falls within the purview of section 11-A. That assessment too is illegal and it was not made within the prescribed period. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that on the facts and circumstances of the present cases, these fall within the ambit of section 11-A and not section 21(1) of the Act. Thus, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. SURINDER SINGH, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (5) TMI 174 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dered as different commercial commodities. Merely because in the schedule pepper is itemised under two heads, garbled and ungarbled, it need not be that these are two different commodities. May be to make it clear that garbled pepper as well as ungarbled pepper will fall within the same clause this amendment was made. Whatever it be, as a matter of fact, ungarbled pepper and garbled pepper cannot be two different commercial commodities as held in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Sheth Brothers (T.R.C. No. 118 of 1981) 1983 52 STC 40. They do not become so merely by mentioning both of them under the same item. Hence the revision is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 173 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y provision providing for such levy of sales tax would not offend entry 48 and that it was within the competence of the State Legislature to include within the definition of the word dealer an auctioneer who carried on the business of selling goods and who had in the customary course of business authority to sell goods belonging to the principal. The same principle would apply to the cases in hand since at the time of the presumed sale the petitioners were in custody of the goods and acted as agents for handling of goods or documents of title relating to goods. No argument has been advanced and rightly so on the merits of the assessment orders passed in some of these cases although a prayer for quashing the assessment orders has been made in some of these cases. The remedy of the petitioners where assessment orders have been passed lies by way of appeal against the assessment orders provided under the Act. In our opinion the petitions lack merit and are dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 172 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iled in 1974. I am impressed by this contention. In my opinion the impugned notices Per se cannot be assailed by the petitioner. These notices cannot be treated as adverse orders passed by the sales tax authorities against the petitioner. After issuing the impugned notices, the sales tax authorities could pass an order against the petitioner or could drop the proceedings against him. It is understood that in the latter case the petitioner will not be an aggrieved person. He will be an aggrieved person only if the sales tax authorities pass an order against him. This apart, the petitioner did not assail the impugned notices (P2 and P3) in the previous Civil Writ Petition No. 2544 of 1966, which was decided on 3rd December, 1970 (Atul Glass Industries, Faridabad v. State of Haryana 1971 28 STC 148), and further the challenge to the impugned notices by the petitioner in the present writ is highly belated. In the result, the writ fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 171 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e not maintainable after the ex parte decree had been set aside. The Supreme Court held that the auction purchaser was entitled to a confirmation of the sale notwithstanding the fact that after the holding of the sale the decree had been set aside. In the present case not only the sale has been confirmed but even the sale deed has been executed and registered in favour of the respondent and he has acquired title to the properties in question. He cannot be divested of his title to the properties simply because the demand created by the assessment order which led to the auction sale of the properties was subsequently annulled. The respondent has purchased an undivided one-third share in the properties in question. Till that share is demarcated he is entitled to symbolic possession over one-third share of the properties. The petitioner is, however, not entitled to any relief in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 170 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... zens v. Brutus 1972 3 WLR 521 at page 525 per Lord Reid. Words are the greatest tricksters. They play pranks with the human mind. We must discover the intention of the legislature. So we must not be strict constructionists. We have to be intention seekers. It appears plain to us that it was never the intention of the legislature to give the company court the power to stay the penalty proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer. This is the only point which Mr. Chawla took up in his appeal against the impugned order. He said that he was aggrieved by that part of the order which stayed the imposition of penalty by the Sales Tax Officer. He has not challenged the rest of the order before us. For these reasons the appeal is allowed. The penalty proceedings are allowed to go on before the Sales Tax Officer. The order of stay passed against him with regard to the levy of penalty is hereby discharged. The rest of the order we do not upset. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 169 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th July, 1976, issued under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. It is not disputed that the petitioners have preferred appeals against the assessment orders which are pending before the appellate authority. In the appeals the interpretation of the notification mentioned above is involved. In the petitions filed in this Court the petitioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification but realising its implications the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this point. The result is that in these petitions the only question to be considered is the meaning and the scope of the notification dated 30th July, 1976. That very matter is engaging the attention of the appellate authority. In such a situation we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our powers under article 226 of the Constitution, and decide for ourselves the scope of the aforesaid notification. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 168 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s under An application for stay under section 10(6) may be heard and disposed of irrespective of the amount involved. In view of this provision the stay application of the assessee could have been decided by the single member and it was not necessary to direct it to be listed before a Bench consisting of two members. In the circumstances this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17th April, 1982, passed by the Tribunal is quashed. The single member of the Tribunal shall now dispose of the stay application filed by the assessee in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 167 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2), the Assessing Authority and for the purposes of sub-section (2A), the Commissioner or any person authorised by him under section 15 may enter any place of business or warehouse of any dealer Provided that these powers shall not be exercisable by an officer below the rank of an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. A bare perusal of the sub-section shows that the Assessing Authority has not been given any power to record the statement of a dealer to find out if he was liable to be assessed or not. In fact the Assessing Authority cannot record the statement of a dealer under any of the sub-sections of section 14. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Authority in recording the statements of the petitioner and getting the same thumb-marked from him is not in consonance with sub-section (3). For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1982 (5) TMI 166 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n were and are appropriately applicable in this case, have not been applied by the authorities concerned, duly. Such determinations, if applied, would have found that the initiation as made and continuation of the proceedings, on that basis, were absolutely without jurisdiction. As such, it may be safely held and observed that the authorities concerned have not acted duly or in proper use of their jurisdiction and power, and furthermore, such initiation and determination being without jurisdiction, viz., was lack of jurisdiction, which would go to the root of the matter and for such reason, interference at this stage would be possible. Since the sale as effected occasioned import of the concerned goods, the petitioners would be entitled to maintain their claim for exemption as mentioned hereinbefore. The rule should thus be made absolute and I order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the order is refused. Ordered accordingly.
-
1982 (5) TMI 165 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... tened people, including doctors, advocates and businessmen. There is no reason to think that their elected representatives, whoever they may be, would misconduct themselves and try to justify the divisive description that the board of directors of a company is one or two ambitious men, mdash and a lot of ballast . And if it comes to that, it will then be time enough to remind that, apart from the interest of the company, public interest would also be a ground for dealing with them under section 398, in view of the nature of the business carried on. In the result, I allow this company petition to the extent of directing that section 88 in regulation 25(b) of the company s articles of association will stand amended as section 87 . The consequence will be that members of the company present in person or by proxy at its general meetings shall be entitled to demand poll, and on a poll, their voting rights shall be as provided for in section 87 of the Companies Act, 1956. No costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Persons resident outside India, Restrictions on payments, Appeals to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... taken at Delhi is maintainable in this court. There is another aspect. These appeals were filed in the year 1975 and admitted to regular hearing. It was open to the respondents, if they were so advised, to have raised the objection immediately after service of the notice of the appeals. They chose not to do so. In my view, it is not in the interests of justice at such a late stage that the memorandum of appeals be returned so that they may be filed in the Bombay High Court as suggested by Mr. Wadhwa, particularly as I have heard arguments on merits. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that this court has jurisdiction to hear these appeals. In view of my discussion above, the orders of the Board with regard to the contraventions, except for the one relating to traveller cheques (show cause notice No. II(a)) are set aside. The appeal of Mr. Mehta is thus partly accepted. Mrs. Mehta s appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1975) is also allowed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 150 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... mpany in liquidation and therefore, the application filed on September 22, 1981, was clearly barred by limitation. In the view I have taken, it will not be correct for me to decide the other points set out for determination. If the official liquidator is so advised, he may present a suit in this court or the appropriate civil court based on the rights of the company in liquidation acquired by virtue of Ex. P-2, the deed evidencing the deposit of title deeds creating the mortgage. It is also not necessary for me to assess the evidence in this behalf as it would prejudice the rival contentions of the official liquidator and the second respondent if any suit is filed by the official liquidator. In the result, the application is dismissed reserving the liberty to the official liquidator to proceed to enforce his rights under the mortgage by procedure known to law and without prejudice to the defence of the second respondent in such proceedings. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Compromise and arrangements, Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Principles for interpretation of statutes
-
1982 (5) TMI 148 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Compmise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... rcement of the rights of the company under the aforesaid agreement of April 29, 1975, said to have been executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of the company. Summons is accordingly disposed of. Though no interim reliefs have been granted at the time of issuing notice on the present summons in the light of the statement made by learned Advocate, Shri A. S. Qureshi, on behalf of respondent No. 1 who has prayed that respondent No. 1 should be discharged from the obligation of that statement, I am of the opinion that in order to ensure that no prejudice is caused to. the cause of the company in the matter of the aforesaid rights, ad interim relief of maintaining status quo in the matter of transfer of the said land of Borivli should be granted till May 15, 1982, so as to enable the committee to take such actions to protect its interest as it may be advised. It is accordingly granted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there should be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (5) TMI 130 - ITAT NAGPUR
Interest Ceasing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... in the open market do not contemplate actual state of the market but only enjoined that it should be assumed that there was an open market and the property could be sold in such a market and on that basis, the value has to be found out. We accordingly reject the arguments advanced on behalf of the accountable person. We also reject the argument of the learned counsel of the accountable person that the decision in Smt. Urmila is not applicable as there was a finding in that case that the firm had goodwill. From the facts brought on record, there can be no dispute that the firm enjoyed considerable goodwill. 7. Coming to the determination of quantum of goodwill, we find that the accountable person has not produced any evidence in support of his contention that interest on capital should be allowed at 15 per cent. The relief given by the Appellate Controller is adequate. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with his order. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1982 (5) TMI 129 - ITAT NAGPUR
Interest Ceasing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... in the open market do not contemplate actual state of the market but only enjoined that it should be assumed that there was an open market and the property could be sold in such a market and on that basis, the value has to be found out. We accordingly reject the arguments advanced on behalf of the accountable person. We also reject the argument of the learned counsel of the accountable person that the decision in Smt. Urmila is not applicable as there was a finding in that case that the firm had goodwill. From the facts brought on record, there can be no dispute that the firm enjoyed considerable goodwill. 7. Coming to the determination of quantum of goodwill, we find that the accountable person has not produced any evidence in support of his contention that interest on capital should be allowed at 15 per cent. The relief given by the Appellate Controller is adequate. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with his order. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
