|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 174 Records
-
1982 (8) TMI 209
... ...
... ... ..... at, the assessee on his own claimed deductions under rule 29 which could have only been under the bona fide belief that the transactions were not liable for tax. Similarly, his conduct cannot be termed as avoiding the payment of tax since he came out with clean hands and placed all the facts before the assessing authority. In our view, the above fiding is purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises in case of such a finding given by the Board of Revenue. We find no force in the contention of Mr. Joshi that the Board of Revenue did not take into consideration the circumstance that the assessee was paying tax on such transactions in all the returns for the assessment years prior to 1966-67. It is a matter of record and it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue was not aware of this fact. In view of these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that no question of law arises for determination in this case and the reference application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 208
... ...
... ... ..... Act only on production of such forms. Although there is no express provision requiring the Food Corporation of India or for that matter the Government and other non-Government bodies to issue C forms, there is an implied obligation to issue such forms in the case of interState sales so as to enable the registered dealer who has sold the goods described in sub-section (3) of section 8 in the course of inter-State sales, to pay lesser tax of 4 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act and avoid the liability of paying 10 per cent sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of his turnover. In this view of the matter, a writ of mandamus shall issue to the respondents to issue C forms in respect of the turnover covered by section 8(1) and (4) read with rule 12(1) and 12(8)(a) of the Rules referred to above, as requested by the petitioner-company in its letter dated 1st August, 1980, in respect of the above transaction. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 207
... ...
... ... ..... was held that the retrospectivity given by the statute was valid. 6.. Faced with the aforesaid impregnable wall of precedent, Mr. R.N. Narula, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was fair enough to take the stand that he was unable to raise any meaningful challenge to the ratio in Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills case 1979 43 STC 158, nor was it denied that the same would now cover the question before us in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, affirming the view in Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills case 1979 43 STC 158, we answer the question posed at the outset in the negative to hold that the imposition of the sales tax with retrospective effect was valid. 7.. Mr. R.N. Narula had then candidly stated that no other question in fact now survives. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but in view of the very fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners we decline to burden them with costs. SURINDER SINGH, J.-I agree. TIWANA, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (8) TMI 206
... ...
... ... ..... it is exercised rightly in the name of the President acting through the medium of the Chief Commissioner. 21.. To conclude finally, the answer to the question posed at the very outset is rendered in the terms that an Administrator of a Union Territory appointed under Part VIII of the Constitution is only a medium or machinery through whom the President acts and not as his delegate. 22.. Applying the above rule, Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 139 and 1154 of 1982 preferred by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, are plainly entitled to succeed and are hereby allowed. We are constrained to set aside the judgment of the learned single judge as also its modification by the review order and dismiss the writ petitions. As a necessary consequence, L.P.A. No. 472 of 1982 preferred by M/s. Sushil Flour Mills must fail and is dismissed. In view of the somewhat ticklish constitutional issues involved we leave the parties to bear their own costs. MITAL, J.-I agree entirely.
-
1982 (8) TMI 205
... ...
... ... ..... neral Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, as a dealer came up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 1979 UPTC 1168. A learned single Judge of this Court took the view that the Sales Tax Officer, Gorakhpur, had no jurisdiction to make the assessment and consequently the revising authority was correct in quashing the order on the reasoning that the General Manager had not declared Gorakhpur to be the principal place of business and there is no order by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., under rule 6(b) or rule 81. This decision was given relating to the assessment year 1965-66. The same position existed during the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. It must, therefore, be held that the assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer, Gorakhpur, in respect of the aforesaid years were rightly quashed by the revising authority. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 204
... ...
... ... ..... re of the transaction and the question whether there is any outright sale of the materials supplied has to be gauged from the intention of the parties. In this case, the assessee, as already stated, is not a dealer in binding materials and he is only a dealer in stationery articles and the supply of binding materials by him has been made to the binders only to see that they use the binding materials of the assessee s choice and not of any cheap material. As has been held in the above case, in receiving the supply of binding materials the binders are only trustees or bailees till the binding materials are actually used in binding works and they are not at liberty to sell the same outside or use them in relation to work orders obtained from others which they can do if the supply is treated as an outright sale. In this view of the matter, we allow the tax case and set aside the addition of Rs. 73,278.67 as it does not represent the sale price of the binding materials. No costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 203
... ...
... ... ..... nd rab salawat . Item No. 224 in the schedule of rates relates to gur including gur shakkar, jaggery powder, gur lauta, gur raskat and palmyra gur . The use of the word including indicates that the enumeration of varieties is not exhaustive. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that gur budda is nothing but gur raskat and is a variety of gur though a little inferior in quality. We accordingly hold that gur budda is a variety of gur and is included in the term gur for purposes of the Act and is a taxable commodity as such. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made no other submission in this case. Since we have held that gur budda is a taxable commodity under the Act, it cannot be held that the recovery certificates issued by the sales tax authorities suffer from any illegality or infirmity justifying interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The stay order is hereby vacated.
-
1982 (8) TMI 202
... ...
... ... ..... xplain as regards the admissions contained in the statements given by them and the assessees did not question the genuineness of the statements in the objections filed by them. There was a personal hearing before the Board of Revenue and even at that time the genuineness of the statements has not been attacked on the ground now put forward in the affidavit that the statements were taken from the assessees under duress and misrepresentation. We are, therefore, of the view that we will not be justified in reopening the entire matter by giving an opportunity to the assessees to throw any light which was never thought of nor projected at any time, by remitting the matter to the Board of Revenue for giving a further opportunity to the assessees to explain their stand as regards to the statements given by them. In this view of the matter, we are confirming the view taken by the Board of Revenue in this case. The appeals therefore fail. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 201
... ...
... ... ..... ot come under item No. 90 while all other goods except those excluded under the very entry are taxable at 6 per cent. Radio leather cases which are species of leather goods are taxable at the rate applicable to radio accessories falling under item No. 3 of the First Schedule. Reference was made to item Nos. 83 and 101 wherein the expression other than those specifically mentioned elsewhere was used. It was pointed out that if the legislature wanted to exclude radio accessories coming under the category of item No. 3 the same expression would have been used, in item No. 90 also. We do not think that such a construction can be permitted merely because of the absence of such words. The question is whether they are radio accessories or not and if the goods satisfy the test, they are liable to be taxed as goods within the meaning of item No. 3. In the result, the two tax revision cases fail and are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocates fee Rs. 150 in each.
-
1982 (8) TMI 200
... ...
... ... ..... 6 the petitioners had made excess payment of Rs. 92,617.25. They made an application on 27th April, 1977, for adjustment of that amount towards the tax payable by them for the assessment year 1976-77. They also mentioned specifically in the returns filed for that year that the excess amount was being so adjusted by them. It is unfortunate that the assessing authority did not pass any order on that application and sought to enforce recovery of the amount payable by the assessee for the subsequent year, i.e., 1976-77. He could not have done so. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents directing them not to enforce the impugned recovery of Rs. 92,617.25 in pursuance of the notice dated 1st July, 1977, relating to the year 1976-77 without first deciding the petitioners application dated 27th April, 1977, for adjustment of the excess amount paid by them for the assessment year 1975-76. We make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (8) TMI 199
... ...
... ... ..... ine the nature of the impugned activity of the distribution and sale of cottonseeds as business by finding out the ratio of sales of cotton to the services rendered is not permissible particularly because the assessee-society has been found by the Tribunal to have been formed with a view to implement the scheme drawn by the Planning Commission of the Government of India for betterment of the quality of cotton by distribution and multiplication of hybrid quality of cotton-seeds, popularly known as Shanker-4 cotton. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not agree, with respect, with the Tribunal that the intention of the assessee-society in distribution and sale of cotton-seeds was to carry on business as a dealer. The result is that we have to answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee-society and against the State Government. The State shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee-society. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1982 (8) TMI 198
Powers of Central Government to authorise with permission of High Court to takeover management or control of industrial undertaking
-
1982 (8) TMI 190
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... the company to pay is established unless it is demolished by acceptable evidence by the debtor-company that it has neither neglected to pay, nor is unable to pay, as the onus is on that company. Admittedly, in this case, no evidence has been let in by the respondent-company to substantiate its solvency or readiness to meet the claim. Hence, it is axiomatic that the company is unable to pay the debt. The foregoing, therefore, manifests and I have no hesitation or difficulty in holding that the respondent-company is due in the sum of Rs. 34,412.25 to the petitioner and the dispute both in regard to the debt as well as the quantum raised by the respondent is not bona fide, as it is only manufactured to harass the petitioner. In the result, the respondent-company is ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator is appointed to carry out the same. The company petition is accordingly allowed with costs. This order shall be published in the Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Bhoomi .
-
1982 (8) TMI 189
Oppression of mismanagement – Application of sections 539 to 544 to proceedings under sections 397 & 398, Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.
-
1982 (8) TMI 174
Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... that the affairs of the company are being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act or otherwise regularly, or that the company maintains proper records as prescribed under the Companies Act. All the documents produced in court indicate to the contrary. The petitioners have, in the present petition, asked for removal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as directors and appointment of new directors. In my view, this is a fit case where an administrator should be appointed for the first respondent company for a period of three years so that the administrator can set the company s house in order. Accordingly, I direct that the official liquidator be appointed as the administrator of the company for a period of three years. At the end of the period of three years the administrator will hand over charge of the company to a new and properly constituted board of directors of the first respondent company. The respondent to pay to the petitioners costs of the petition.
-
1982 (8) TMI 166
Audit of cost accounts in certain cases, Power of Central Government to accord approval etc., subject to conditions
-
1982 (8) TMI 165
Share capital - Further issue of, Right to obtain copies and inspect trust deed, Powers of Court to rectify register of members
-
1982 (8) TMI 150
Bail - Criteria for grant of ... ... ... ... ..... ecial circumstances which would be available after the trial starts, the concerned accused can move the Court to be released on bail and that will be considered on merits of the matter. This consideration will certainly depend on whether the delay in hearing is due to the prosecution or the defence. The prime consideration in this order is for a proper and unhampered trial of an old case which is delayed due to absence of the accused and so the accused should also cooperate. 30. emsp In the result, therefore Criminal Revision Application 433 of 1982, filed by Original complainant is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate releasing the concerned accused (i.e, opponent no. 1) is hereby cancelled. Rule is made absolute. 31. emsp So far as criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 1982 is concerned, as the bail order is cancelled, there is no question of varying the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this petition is dismissed and rule is discharged.
-
1982 (8) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... be that of manufacturing but it was definitely processing of articles, and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the WT Act. The ld. departmental representative highlighted the reasons given by the lower authorities for rejecting the assessee rsquo s claims under s. 5(1)(xxxi). 5. We have heard the submission of both the parties and considered the facts of the case. Admittedly, the nature of the business of the assessee was that of dealing in timber and conversion of log to plank or firewood by a saw mill owned by him. In our opinion, when a log either by manual labour or by mechanical process is converted into firewood or plank, a new substance does come into being and such process can be termed as manufacture as the plank and firewood are quite different articles which come into being, out of logs after sawing them. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the WT Act. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (8) TMI 144
... ...
... ... ..... ress and the assessee was responding and in fact subsequently also the notices were received by the assessee and the assessee responded of such notices. I wonder how suddenly comes across a notice by affixture. What prompted the issue of notice by affixture is obscure. The ld. Deptl. Rep. also has not been able to point out how the notice was sought to be served by affixture. From the report of the process server, it is also not clear whether the process server made any enquiry form the outsiders about the availability of the assessee at the particular place to which the notice has to be served. I am therefore of the firm opinion that no notice was served in this case on the assessee as required by law. The notice of affixture is illegal and invalid having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For the above reasons, the assessment under s. 147(a) r/w s. 148 cannot be sustained in law and the same has to be and is hereby cancelled. 7. The appeal stands allowed.
........
|
