|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 223 Records
-
1983 (2) TMI 269 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... asamudram 1967 20 STC 419 the assessing authority had the assessee s return before him but as he felt that the return was filed beyond the time-limit, he ignored the return and proceeded on the basis that there is no return at all and levied the penalty. In those circumstances, this Court felt that it is not open to the assessing authority to treat such return as no return and proceed to apply his best judgment. Since the return was filed before he made the assessment, he is bound to take note of the return and as the return contained the true turnover, there was no wilful suppression of any turnover. We are of the view that the above decisions may not have any application to the facts of these cases. As already stated, we are satisfied that, on the facts, the application of section 12(3) by the assessing authority cannot be said to be unjustified. In this view of the matter, the above two tax revision cases are allowed and the orders of the Appellate Tribunal are set aside.
-
1983 (2) TMI 268 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing a delicate fragrance is not necessarily a perfume. Fresh flowers such as roses or jasmine, and spices such as cardamom or saffron for example, have a fragrance, but are not, for that reason, perfumes. Sandalwood and sandalwood oil are not known as or used as perfumes. Moreover they are not used in personal toilet or for the beautification of the body as perfumes. They are therefore not covered by entry 19 of Schedule E. In our view therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that neither sandalwood nor sandalwood oil are covered by entry 19 of Schedule E of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the premises the questions posed before us are answered as follows Question No. (1) in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. (2) in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The applicants will pay to the respondents costs of these references, fixed at Rs. 300.
-
1983 (2) TMI 267 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ink of foreign origin, and also was a liquor though of lower alcohol percentage could be without any difficulty classified as Indian-made foreign liquor under item 22 of the First Schedule to the said Act. 28.. We therefore answer the questions as follows Question (1) In the affirmative. Question (2) Need not be answered. Question (3) As reframed. In the negative. Questions (4) and (5) Need not be answered in view of our answers to the above questions. Question (6) The sale of bottles was liable to tax under section 7(1)(c) of the Sales Tax Act. But the assessee be held liable to pay sales tax only in respect of the unrefunded amount. The assessee to satisfy the Sales Tax Officer from its books of account as to the amount unrefunded. Question (7) Not necessary to be answered. Question (8) In the affirmative. 29.. No order as to costs. 30.. The learned counsel for the petitioners makes an oral application for seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The same is rejected.
-
1983 (2) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is found to be incorrect or incomplete. But sub-section (4) of section 12 will come into play only when the return filed by the assessee, which is found to be incorrect or incomplete, is inconsistent with the entries found in the accounts which are accepted as correct. Thus sub-section (4) of section 12 covers a different situation and is intended to apply to a case where there is discrepancy between the returns submitted, which are found to be incorrect or incomplete, and the entries made in the accounts which are found to be correct. The proviso to sub-section (5) of section 12 would indicate that penalty can be levied both under sub-section (3) and under sub-section (5) of section 12 in a given case, if the facts warrant the application of both the sub-sections. In this context, the non obstante clause occurring in sub-section (4) is also significant. For the reasons stated above, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. The tax revision case is therefore dismissed.
-
1983 (2) TMI 265 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) of the Act summarised by us earlier, particularly in paragraphs 8 and 16 above, is not only in consonance with the direct decision on the point of the Madras High Court but also finds support from the two decisions of this Court which throw light on the question. We are, accordingly, of the opinion that this is the correct construction of section 38(5), and with respect, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court while construing a similar provision in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 19.. Consequently, the question referred to us, as we have reframed, is answered in the negative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the question of enhancement of tax under section 38(5) of the Act on the application made by the revenue and it was not justified in refusing to consider that question, treating the application as not maintainable. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 264 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Gill and Company Ltd., Ujjain. reported in 1974 33 STC 536 and in the case of Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1972 29 STC 639. The Allahabad High Court has also taken a similar view in the case of United Timber Corporation v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, reported in 1972 29 STC 646. In the present case, therefore, there being no agreement to charge freight separately, and the price charged being a lump sum price, the assessees cannot deduct from the sale price charged by them the amount of freight. 7.. In the premises, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the department and against the assessees. 8.. The applicants will pay to the respondent the cost of the reference. The fees of Rs. 100 deposited by the applicants will be appropriated towards the cost of the reference.
-
1983 (2) TMI 263 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , we find that the assessing authority has given cogent reasons for not accepting the explanation of the dealer about the absence of the entry relating to the transactions found incorporated in the loose papers found, till about 5-00 or 5-30 P.M., when the survey of business premises was made on 27th October, 1977. One of the reasons was that even the entries which were subsequently made did not contain the full record of transactions. It is difficult to accept the submission of the dealer s counsel that the rejection of the dealer s explanation was unjustified. In the matter of turnover as well, the Tribunal has given adequate relief to the dealer. In the circumstances noticed by it in its order, it cannot be said that the estimate of turnover ultimately made by the Tribunal is unreasonable or that it suffers from any manifest error which may induce this Court to interfere with it. In conclusion, the revision fails and is dismissed. But, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 262 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940), or medicinal mixtures or compounds, the components of which have not already suffered tax, but excluding arishtams or asavas and including surgical dressing. Having regard to the process the absorbent cotton wool which is used for dressing undergoes the High Court held that it falls within item 95. Reference was also made to the fact that they are manufactured to Indian Pharmacopoeia Standards. The principle of the said decision clearly applies to the goods in the instant case as well. It may be remarked that even distilled water undergoes the manufacturing process and is manufactured to accord with the Indian Pharmacopoeia Standards. Hence, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the turnover on this account would be second sales in the hands of the assessee and therefore not exigible to tax. The tax revision case accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 (rupees two hundred and fifty only).
-
1983 (2) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mistake, it is still a wilful failure to submit the return. The mere fact that after the detection of the sales by the assessing authority, the assessee furnished details of the sales, cannot make the nonsubmission of the return a bona fide act on the part of the assessee. It is in this view that the Tribunal has sustained the levy of penalty, but, taking into consideration certain extenuating circumstances, reduced the quantum of penalty from 150 per cent of the tax assessed to fifty per cent. The learned counsel for the assessee would contend that the extenuating circumstances referred to by the Tribunal are sufficient to hold that no penalty is called for in this case. We are not able to accept this contention. The mere fact that the Tribunal has referred to certain extenuating circumstances cannot be taken as completely exonerating the assessee from the levy of penalty. In this view of the matter, we agree with the view of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision cases.
-
1983 (2) TMI 260 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eturns and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the order of the assessing authority imposing penalty upon the assessee under section 43(1) of the Act. The contention cannot be upheld. While sustaining the order of penalty the Tribunal observed as follows In the present case it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there was an omission to include certain amounts in the taxable turnover either on account of legal advice or a genuine belief that it should not have been included. 9.. In view of the above concession made on behalf of the assessee it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in maintaining the order passed by the assessing authority in imposing penalty upon the assessee under section 43(1) of the Act. Our answer to question No. (3) referred to us is therefore is in the affirmative and against the assessee. 10.. The reference is answered accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (2) TMI 259 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l have not been brought out on the file by the parties. It is not disclosed as to which component or components of the rice bran oil, individually or collectively, is inedible or makes the whole oil inedible. So, this question could not be decided on the meagre data which is available. Moreover, in view of my findings on contention No. (i), it is not necessary to go into this question. Mr. Sibal argued that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner had no authority to issue the letter, annexure P-5, fettering the jurisdiction of the quasijudicial authorities in their quasi-judicial functions. In view of my conclusions on contention No. (i), it will be inappropriate to decide this question. It will, however, be open to the petitioners to urge this point before the Assessing Authority when their assessment is being framed. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the notices dated 24th February, 1982 (copies of which are annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8). No costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 258 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the Central rule is meant to occupy the entire field, and that Central rule 12 has therefore impliedly repealed State rule 5A. There is, in my view, no justification to warrant that conclusion either from the wording of the statute or the rules. They in fact indicate to the contrary. In a case such as the present where the legislature has conferred power simultaneously on two authorities and where the Central Government called for certain particulars and the State Government called for certain additional particulars in regard to the very same matter, I see no inconsistency or repugnancy or conflict. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that the authorities are unjustified in requiring the petitioner to supply the particulars prescribed under rule 5A. In so far as the petitioner has been called upon to comply with the legal requirements, exhibits P3 and P4 are impeccable and the challenge against them fails. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 257 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gs to deal with this aspect. The present petition is confined to the seizure of the consignment made by the respondents and its justification in law. On the facts of the present case and even on the case of the respondents disclosed in the notice dated 15th September, 1982, and the counter-affidavit filed in this petition, it is obvious that the conditions enabling them to effect seizure under section 13-A of the consignment carried in the aforesaid truck were non-existent. 8.. Once it is found that the seizure was without jurisdiction it is obvious that consequential proceedings for imposing penalty in respect of the consignment aforesaid under section 13-A could not follow for breach of the provisions of section 13-A. The petitioners are clearly entitled to relief in this petition. 9.. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 15th September, 1982, are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 256 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... second sale will not be taxable in the hands of the printer. This decision directly applies to the facts of this case. The Kerala High Court in the decision referred to above has taken the view that printing of letter heads, judgments of courts and ration cards using the assessee s paper is only in the nature of works contract. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan 1977 39 STC 226, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that printing of question papers for educational institutions cannot be taken to be a contract of sale of a finished product and in the nature of things, such a contract can only be a contract for labour. Having regard to the preponderance of judicial opinion, we hold that the disputed turnover in this case has to be treated not as one of finished product, but as one relating to works contract. The tax case is therefore allowed and the orders of the Tribunal as well as the authorities below are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (2) TMI 255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
MPORT AND EXPORT — AGENT — SALE IN THE COURSE OF IMPORT — SALE OUTSIDE STATE — CONTRACT OF ASSESSEE WITH STC, OF WHICH PEC WAS A WING, TO IMPORT, STOCK AND SELL MACHINES TO ACTUAL USERS ONLY — ORDERS PLACED WITH FOREIGN SELLER BY ASSESSEE AFTER OBTAINING ORDERS FROM LOCAL CUSTOMERS — PEC RESERVING RIGHT TO NAME ACTUAL USERS TO WHOM MACHINES TO BE SOLD — IMPORT LICENCE IN NAME OF PEC — IMPORTATION OF GOODS BY ASSESSEE ON BASIS OF ACTUAL USERS ORDERS AND NOT ON ACTUAL USER'S LICENCE HELD BY LOCAL CUSTOMERS — INVOICE RAISED IN NAME OF ASSESSEE BY FOREIGN SELLER.
-
1983 (2) TMI 254 - SC ORDER
Deduction of the value of goods returned by the purchasers during the assessment year 1972-73 under rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, even though the said goods had been sold during the assessment year 1971-72 challenged
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As such deduction can be claimed not in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which the goods were returned but in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were sold allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of assessment for the year 1972-73 shall be modified accordingly. Also direct the department to modify the assessment for the year 1971-72 and to refund to the assessee excess tax, if any, paid during that year.
-
1983 (2) TMI 253 - SC ORDER
Deduction of the value of goods returned by the purchasers during the assessment year 1972-73 under rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, even though the said goods had been sold during the assessment year 1971-72 challenged
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As such deduction can be claimed not in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which the goods were returned but in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were sold allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of assessment for the year 1971-72 shall be modified accordingly. Also direct the department to modify the assessment for the year 1970-71 and to refund to the assessee excess tax, if any, paid during that year.
-
1983 (2) TMI 252 - SC ORDER
Deduction of the value of goods returned by the purchasers during the assessment year 1972-73 under rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, even though the said goods had been sold during the assessment year 1971-72 challenged
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As such deduction can be claimed not in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which the goods were returned but in the proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were sold allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of assessment for the year 1972-73 shall be modified accordingly. Also direct the department to modify the assessment for the year 1971-72 and to refund to the assessee excess tax, if any, paid during that year.
-
1983 (2) TMI 251 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under rule 9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 from payment of sales tax on the turnover relating to "service discount"?
Whether the value of goods returned by the purchasers could be deducted under rule 9(b)(i) of the Rules from the total turnover of the year of assessment in which the goods were actually returned when they had been sold in the previous assessment year?
Held that:- The appeal is dismissed in so far as the first question is concerned. The appeal is allowed in so far as the second question is concerned.
-
1983 (2) TMI 243 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the levy of additional tax under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975 (Orissa Act 24 of 1975) as amended by the Orissa Additional Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979 ("the amending Act") is a single point levy or a multi-point levy?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Any dealer who is not liable to pay tax under the principal Act either by reason of his not having sufficient gross turnover or by reason of exemption given under section 7 of the principal Act is not liable to pay additional tax under the Act. If a dealer is exempted by the State Government under the second proviso to section 3(1) of the Act he is also not liable to pay the additional tax under the Act.The turnover in respect of goods whose sales or purchases are not taxable under the principal Act in the hands of any dealer by reason of section 8 of the principal Act is not liable to the payment of additional sales tax under the Act. The turnover in respect of sales and purchases of declared goods is not taxable under the Act by reason of the first proviso to section 3(1) of the Act. Any other turnover which is exempted by the State Government under the second proviso to section 3(1) of the Act is also not taxable under the Act. The levy of the additional tax on the gross turnover of a dealer under section 3 of the Act is subject to these conclusions.
........
|
