|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 224 Records
-
1984 (4) TMI 261
... ...
... ... ..... d if the item in the Schedule has failed to give full effect to such policy, that is not a matter for the courts to rectify. After all, the Schedule is part of the statute and the entries therein are not the result of exercise of delegated legislative power. We are concerned only with the policy of the legislature as reflected in the statute, and not with anything else. We cannot direct the legislature to amend the Schedule as the association wants. 10.. Items in the Third Schedule are exempted from tax under section 9 subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed . Prescribed means prescribed by Rules made under the Act. The conditions and restrictions in item 12 are not conditions and restrictions imposed by the rules they are part of the Act itself. The attack against them on the ground that they are outside the scope of section 9 cannot also, therefore, succeed. The original petitions are therefore without merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 260
... ...
... ... ..... rtain purchases being attributable to having been made from the registered dealers. In fact, the direction given by the Tribunal to this extent appears to run contrary to its own findings. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, it will be answered in the following manner The Tribunal was justified in directing that the quantum of purchases enhanced should also be worked out and classified on the same basis as set out in question No. 1 in proportion of the purchases under different heads, such as outside Bombay State sales or inter-State sales and sales of goods covered by entries 1 to 18 of Schedule B as revealed by the books of account in respect of the other turnover and accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, but it was not justified in directing that any proportion of the enhanced turnover of purchases should be attributed to purchases from registered dealers. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1984 (4) TMI 259
... ...
... ... ..... inery, the Sales Tax Inquiry Committee directed inclusion of all tractors, water pumps and water pumping sets along with agricultural machinery as taxable at the same rate. Noticing that this would not be maintaining status quo, the Select Committee directed status quo to be maintained in the law and that was how entry 36 happened to find its place when the Bill took shape as the Act. Assumption, therefore, that the change of law was contemplated is not warranted and that has led to the approach in the judgment of the Division Bench. In the fact and circumstances indicated, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that water pumps and pumping sets in question fall within entry 5 of Schedule II-Part A as it stood at the relevant time. We, therefore, answer the first of the questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicantassessee. We do not think that the second question calls for any opinion from us in view of our answer to question No. (1).
-
1984 (4) TMI 258
... ...
... ... ..... ar that the said articles must be regarded as accessories to the motor vehicles as contemplated in clause (2) of entry 58 of Schedule C. As we have pointed out above, the Division Bench of this High Court cited with approval the definition of the term accessory contained in Webster s Third New International Dictionary which would show that anything which adds to the beauty or convenience of something else could be regarded as an accessory of that article. 7.. We may make it clear that we express no opinion on the controversy as to whether an accessory to a part or accessory of the main article could be itself regarded as an accessory of the main article, because in the view which we have taken, the articles in question could fairly be regarded as accessories to the motor vehicles themselves. 8.. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the respondents-dealer. Looking to all the facts of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 257
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions of any law for the time being in force. In Ramkrishan Kulwantrai s case 1979 44 STC 117, the Court held To take, however, merely, the aggregate of the amounts collected by a registered dealer by way of tax and deduct from it the amount of tax payable by him and to forfeit the balance would be, as we have pointed out above, doing violence to the language and the meaning of section 46(2), as also to make a mockery of the intention of the legislature in enacting section 46. In that case the Court held that the intention of the legislature was to prohibit collection of tax on every transaction of sale or purchase which was not exigible to tax. In the case of Automobile Products of India Limited 1983 52 STC 314, a similar view has been taken after pointing out the decision in Ramkrishan Kulwantrai s case 1979 44 STC 117. The question referred to us, therefore, will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the department. Respondent-assessee to pay the costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 256
... ...
... ... ..... ase tax on such goods under section 14 . Sub-section (1) of section 10, which, inter alia, deals with deductions from the turnover of sales of goods specified in Schedule E for the levy of sales tax provides in clause (i) for such deduction being granted in respect of sales of goods on the purchase of which the dealer is liable to pay purchase tax under section 14. This would suggest that the expression as if such dealer had become liable to pay purchase tax on such goods under section 14 was used in sub-section (1) of section 15 to enable the dealer to claim a deduction from turnover as contemplated in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 10. In view of what we have observed above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in the conclusion at which it arrived. 6.. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. 7.. There will be no order as to the costs of the reference, as the dealer is not represented before us.
-
1984 (4) TMI 255
... ...
... ... ..... neral sales tax, but it does not render the rate of general sales tax mentioned in column 4 against entry 22 of Schedule E as nil for the purpose of computation of rate of purchase tax under sub-section (2A) of section 14. In other words, the rate of purchase tax under the said provision, as far as the medicines in question are concerned, which admittedly fall under entry 22 of Schedule E would be the aggregate of rates specified in columns 3 and 4 of that entry, viz., 6 per cent. 12.. We may mention that it was faintly argued by Mr. Joshi that the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 14 have no application to goods falling under entry 22 of Schedule E. According to him, the said provisions can apply only to goods which are specifically described in the Schedules A to E and not to the goods falling in the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E. 13.. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the department. Respondents to pay the costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 254
... ...
... ... ..... r the order of reassessment being validated by waiver on the ground that the assessee had, taken part in the proceedings without raising objection as to the invalidity of the notice. The question referred to us for our determination in all the three references are identical. In the view that we have taken questions Nos. (2) and (3) will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As fas as question No. (1) is concerned, since the facts were on record and not in dispute and the question raised was a question relating to jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to entertain the proceedings, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee to raise the question of validity of service of notice at the stage of rectification proceedings. The question No. (1) is also answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As far as the question of costs is concerned, looking to the circumstances of the case we direct that there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 253
... ...
... ... ..... annot be investigated in the present proceedings, and there is nothing but the assertion of the petitioners to support their case. Nor is it shown that the refusal of the District Industries Officers to grant the certificate applied for, was arbitrary and totally unrelated to the facts. The Original Petitions thus fail, and are dismissed without costs. The petitioners will however be permitted to pay off the tax due from them as per the assessment orders/demand notices impugned herein, in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 15th May, 1984, if they have complied with the conditions imposed by this Court wherever conditional orders of stay have been passed. Soon after the judgment was pronounced counsel for the petitioners made an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We find no substantial question of law of general importance, which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court involved in this case. Hence the request for leave to appeal is declined.
-
1984 (4) TMI 252
... ...
... ... ..... y the provisions of section 14(6) of the said Act. It may be pointed out that unlike section 15 which provides a time-limit, which at the relevant time was 5 years, there is no such time-limit provided at all in section 14(6) of the said Act. Hence there was no question of the order of assessment being invalid in law on the ground that the notice in form XIII had been issued beyond the time-limit of 5 years. 5.. In the result the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. (1) in the negative. Question No. (2) in the negative. It is clarified that both the questions are answered in favour of the department and against the dealer-respondent. 6.. We may only clarify that, in view of the fact that in this case it was only the provisions of section 14(6) which were applicable, the question as to whether the period under assessment was a completed assessment year or not would make no difference. The respondent to pay to the applicant the costs of this reference.
-
1984 (4) TMI 251
... ...
... ... ..... the death of Chander Sen the firm was reconstituted and his widow replaced the deceased in the array of partners as is shown by the statement of Particulars dated 21-8-1958 (Ex. 12). The alleged relinquishment of the interest as partner on her part is thus not substantiated by reliable evidence and the Insolvency Judge has not erred in finding accordingly. 22. To sum up it is established that--(i) the appellants committed an act of insolvency within the meaning of Section 6(e) of the Act (ii) the act of insolvency took place within three months preceding the petition as required under Section 9(1)(c) of the Act (iii) the aggregate amount of the debt exceeds Rs. 500/- (iv) the debt which is liquidated is payable in any case at ascertainable future date if not immediately as contemplated under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act (v) the appellants did not satisfy the Court that they are able to pay their debts. 23. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 250
Income Tax, Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... only requirements upon which the ITO has to judge the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the dividends distributed has been taken by the Bombay High Court in a number of cases, viz.CIT v. Suleman and Co. Ltd. 1968 68 ITR 94 and New Star Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1968 68 ITR 470 and also by the Patna High Court in Universal Bank of India Ltd. v. CIT 1967 65 ITR 536, Having regard to the above discussion, I am inclined to agree with the learned Judicial Member that the conscientious of the judicial opinion can be stated to be that when the company is helpless in holding a general meeting irrespective of reasons and without a general meeting dividends cannot be declared, such a reason should be treated as a good reason for the application of clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 104. Accordingly, I agree with the learned Judicial Member on both the points of difference. 6. The order will now go to the regular Bench for deciding the appeals according to the majority view.
-
1984 (4) TMI 249
... ...
... ... ..... request made before the Tribunal has been rejected on the ground that the matter has been concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. Executors of the Estate of Late H. H. Rajkuverba Dowager Maharani Saheb of Gondal 1978 115 ITR 301. It is not disputed that the matter is concluded by the said decision. We asked learned counsel for the Department whether that judgment has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel is not able to supply us with any precise information. The question raised is, therefore, really academic. Civil petition is , therefore, rejected.
-
1984 (4) TMI 248
Power to takeover industrial undertaking without investigation under certain circumstances ... ... ... ... ..... on had not been made on the date mentioned in the Gazette and hence the order was null and void and/or the management was being run inefficiently and negligently thereby creating serious detriment to the petitioner company and its shareholders and/or further extension of such management after the expiry of the initial period of two years without giving any opportunity of being heard to the company and or its managing director or directors, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In the result, this rule fails and is discharged but there will be no order as to costs. All interim orders and/or directions stand vacated. By way of abundant caution, it is made clear that this court has not considered the merits of the case but has disposed of the writ petition on the preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable before this court. On the prayer of learned counsel of the petitioners, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today.
-
1984 (4) TMI 247
Winding up - Power of registrar to strike defunct company off register ... ... ... ... ..... ter of companies. Having given my careful consideration to all the aspects in this petition, I find that it would be just and proper to grant the relief as prayed for. In the result, therefore, Company Petition No. 6 of 1981, succeeds and the relief as prayed for is hereby granted. It is further directed that after the certified copy of this order is presented before the Registrar of Companies, the company, on restoration, shall present all the audited statement of accounts for the intervening period from 1959 to the date of this order with the Registrar of Companies within a period of six months. They shall also take steps to increase the share capital by an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and on a date six months hereafter, that is, on October 8, 1984, these matters be placed before me along with a compliance report from the petitioners and the Registrar of Companies. The petitioners shall bear the costs of the proceedings only in so far as the official receiver is concerned.
-
1984 (4) TMI 232
Meetings and Proceedings – Extra Ordinary General Meeting, Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... nd if necessary to approve by a resolution only a modification to the scheme pending sanction before the court, in our view, there was nothing either in the Companies Act or Rules made there under empowering the court to prevent the company from doing so. Since the company has now agreed to restrict the holding of the requisitioned meeting, which it is not disputed, is properly requisitioned, only to the consideration of the first resolution, viz., to renegotiate with Brooke Bond India Ltd. read with the part of the explanatory note connected therewith, the court would not be justified in preventing them from doing so. In the view that we are taking, it was not necessary to consider the further contention of Shri Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the company court had no jurisdiction or had no power to deal with this question. With this, the order in the appeal would be in terms of the minutes of the order signed by the counsel for the parties and handed in.
-
1984 (4) TMI 231
Court – Jurisdiction of, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ages claimed by the respondent-company are matters left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum and decided there. In the result, C.A. No. 240 of 1983 is allowed and the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the amount in deposit. In the result, this petition is liable to be closed as the debt claimed is discharged subject to the observation made in regard to interest claimed. Before parting with the case, I must repeat that no inferior court may pass an order of any kind that will have the effect of interfering with matters which are already in issue before a superior court. It is alien and unknown to our country s legal system. Such an order, apart from being an order without jurisdiction, amounts to contempt of the superior court, more so when the inferior court is apprised of the issues before the superior court. For the reasons given above, this company petition is closed as well as the other company applications which are not disposed of specifically by this order.
-
1984 (4) TMI 215
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Cost and expenses payable out of assets in a winding-up by Court
-
1984 (4) TMI 214
Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... resent case, the default continued from February 1, 1979, till the date of the filing of the statement of affairs in September, 1983, that is, four years, and six months. The fine for this entire period calculated at Rs. 100 per diem would run into thousands of rupees Taking an overall picture and the young age of the accused into consideration, I do not think that too strict a view need be taken although the conduct of the accused during the course of the trial was none too satisfactory. For the above reasons, I convict accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 under sub-section (5) of section 454 of the Act and direct each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. Their bail bonds will stand cancelled after three weeks. So far as accused No. 3 is concerned, he is acquitted. His bail bond will stand cancelled. Warrants to issue after three weeks against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
-
1984 (4) TMI 199
Export Rebate - Excess production of sugar ... ... ... ... ..... ies on the ground that there was nil production of sugar during the corresponding period of the base year (it is seen from the record that there was some production during remaining periods of the base year). 3. emsp In a number of previous cases the Tribunal has held that, provided there was some production during the base year, a claim would not be inadmissible merely because there was no production during the corresponding period of the base year. In view of this present appeal deserves to succeed. When this was pointed out to Shri Tayal, he fairly agreed that the matter was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal. We accordingly allow the appeal and direct that consequential relief be granted to the appellants.
........
|
