|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 233 Records
-
1987 (10) TMI 368 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the fact that the ownership of the unit is transferred during the period for which the exemption has been granted, subject, of course, to the fulfilment of the conditions under which the exemption is to operate. 17. In conclusion we quash the order of the Divisional Level Committee dated June 2, 1987 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and direct it to pass an order afresh on the application of the petitioner within one month of the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed before the second respondent on behalf of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court repeatedly on account of the legally erroneous orders passed by the respondents, we direct the respondents to pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner which we assess at ₹ 500/-. The petition shall stand allowed in these terms. 18. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the parties within three days on payment of necessary charges.
-
1987 (10) TMI 367 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n O.J.C. No. 2090 of 1980 1989 74 STC 10 (Shree Durga Oil Mills v. Sales Tax Officer) and this Court has held that by operation of the principle of promissory estoppel, the State and its instrumentalities would be obliged to grant relief which was held out by the Resolution. Therefore, the assessment of purchase tax on raw materials was without jurisdiction. Following the said decision of this Court, we quash annexure-7 and direct opposite party No. 1 to reassess the liability of the petitioner on the basis of the law laid down in O.J.C. No. 2090 of 1980 1989 74 STC 10 (Orissa). The writ application is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (10) TMI 366 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Taxes 1987 65 STC 108, inasmuch as tilakam and kajal were not specifically included in entry No. 36, as it stood at the relevant time, they were taxable only as general goods. In that way, the original assessment made by the assessing authority was correct, and did not call for any revision. Though we do not approve of the filing of the writ petition for such a declaration without taking the matter in appeal, as allowed by the statute, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the decision referred to above, we do not want the petitioner to be driven to the appellate authority at this distance of time, even assuming that the time-lag would not affect his right to file an appeal. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petitions giving the declaration as prayed for, quashing the revised assessment orders in the respective writ petitions. The writ petitions are allowed as above. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 365 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f transporting the goods to the purchaser without charging any price for them. It has also to be kept in mind that the burden of proof that there was an implied sale of packing material or container is on the department and the assessee is not required to prove the negative. 4.. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid two cases, our answer to question No. (1) is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in inferring sales of bardana on conjectural basis of having implied contract of sale thereof without any data whatsoever. 5.. In view of our answer to question No. (1), we find it unnecessary to answer question No. (2). We are also of the opinion that in view of our answer to question No. (1), question No. (3) remains only of academic importance and need not be answered. Accordingly, questions Nos. (2) and (3) are returned unanswered, for the reasons stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1987 (10) TMI 364 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ickly heat powder. This letter was issued under para 11 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1970. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is right in considering the Johnson prickly heat powder as falling under entry 37 (drugs) and not under entry 36 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 363 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the ground that the assessment proceedings which were sought to be initiated by issuing the impugned notice were barred by limitation. It was held that the question of limitation can and ought to have been raised by the appellant before the Income-tax Officer. That is not a point which can be legitimately agitated in the writ proceedings. 6.. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. Appropriate course for the petitioner is to file a reply to the show cause notices and substantiate its case before the Sales Tax Officer. We are confident that if such an objection is filed, the Sales Tax Officer shall dispose it of after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case. 7.. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 362 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ollected only with effect from 20th of August, 1987 and that no collection will be made or recovery effected of the tax as per the amended provision relating to the above entries for the period between 1st of July, 1987 and 19th of August, 1987. We record this submission made by the Advocate-General and direct that tax as per the amended provisions on the two items mentioned above will not be recovered for the period prior to the date of publication of the Kerala Finance Act 18 of 1987 in the Gazette. Subject to the above direction these original petitions are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Immediately on pronouncement of the judgment counsel for some of the petitioners made an oral representation for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not see any substantial question of law of general importance which, in our opinion, needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer for leave is accordingly rejected. Leave refused. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 361 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The courts have recognised such a rule as the rule casus omissus . This case is one such where these principles and rules of construction have to be applied. On doing so, what is required to be done is to read into and supply the explanation as an appendage to the table annexed to section 4A, as amended by Act 3 of 1985 and assume the date 15th February, 1986 in place of 1st July, 1982 for purposes of ascertaining the gross collection capacity of the petitioners theatres based upon the rates of admission that were in existence immediately prior to 15th February, 1986. So read and interpreted, the provisions of section 4A, as amended by Act 3 of 1985 and the scheme of composition levy become meaningful and the object of the amendment effectuated and fulfilled, and not defeated. For the above reasons, I reject all the contentions of the petitioners and dismiss the writ petitions, and uphold the notices demanding difference of tax from the petitioners. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 360 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other particulars mentioned by the petitioners in their application, it was obligatory on the part of the Sales Tax Officer under sub-rule (6) of rule 4, to afford an opportunity to the petitioners of proving the correctness and completeness of the information furnished by them. The return filed by the respondents does not reveal that such an opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before rejecting their application. Consequently the impugned orders suffer from serious legal infirmity, and, therefore, could not be sustained. 8.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders (annexures P-3 and P-4) passed by the respondents are quashed and the respondent No. 2 (Sales Tax Officer) is directed to decide the petitioners application afresh after affording them an opportunity as contemplated in sub-rule (6) of rule 4. There will be no order as to costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1987 (10) TMI 359 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er on 30th October, 1983 in regard to the period from 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980, which is a period subsequent to the period for which the impugned orders of assessment had been passed. Perusal of this order indicates that reliance was placed on a report of the Inspector. The other material which is sought to be relied on, is a copy of an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 27th April, 1983 whereby the matter was remanded in regard to the subsequent period between 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980. These orders, in our opinion, can hardly be said to have any bearing on the question as to whether the petitioner was carrying on kirana and grain business during the period in respect of which the impugned orders of assessment were passed. 8.. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount may be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 358 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f mentioning bran in a separate category. In the notification in question, however, even though exemption was granted with regard to husk of all grains, cereals, pulses and rice which found place at S. No. 1 of the notification dated 7th April, 1967, the exemption with regard to bran which was mentioned at S. No. 2 of that notification, was withdrawn. This, in our opinion, indicates that the notification dated 1st April, 1982 on the basis of which exemption has been claimed by the petitioner, did not intend to grant exemption with regard to rice bran. 8.. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction which may justify quashing of the said orders. 9.. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 357 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... les Tax Officer nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had recorded any finding that on account of non-maintenance of stock register, etc., the method of accounting employed by the assessee was such that the assessment could not properly be made on that basis. As has been pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee, in the instant case, maintained during the relevant year closed and quantitative account. No defect was pointed out in this closed and quantitative account, either by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. 6.. In view of the foregoing discussion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gangaram Mohanlal Mittal 1980 45 STC 381, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (10) TMI 356 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e order which is accordingly quashed. The Commissioner is directed to hear and decide the revision afresh when the petitioner may bring to the notice of the officer exercising the power of the Commissioner the decision in O.J.C. No. 1143 of 1985 decided on 24th September, 1986 Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Limited v. State of Orissa 1987 65 STC 273 (Orissa) . The officer hearing the revision shall consider the applicability of such decision. 4.. In the result, the writ application is allowed, annexure-2 is quashed and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (opposite party No. 2) is directed to hear the petitioner afresh and dispose of the revision in accordance with law. He may direct the officer exercising the power of the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the matter to hear and dispose of the same early. Petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner on 9th November, 1987, on which date the latter shall fix a date of hearing. No costs. Writ application allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 355 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not come to the rescue of the defendants. Under this section, the bar is only in entertaining any suit, or other proceedings to set aside or modify, or question the validity of any assessment, order or decision made or passed by any officer or authority under the Act or any rules made thereunder. In the case before us, we are not concerned with the modification or question the orders passed by any authority. But we are only concerned with mala fide action on the part of the defendant-check post officer in the case. That being the case, I am not in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, I do not see any substantial question of law involved in this case which would warrant upsetting the judgment of the two lower courts. Thus, there are no merits in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The second appeal is dismissed with costs to R-1. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amount paid by way of freight by the principals of the appellant-commission agent was liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the appellant?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The legislature intended that where the cost of freight was charged separately, that amount could not be included in the turnover of a dealer. That is what was done in this case. The freight was separately charged and was paid accordingly by the principals. The High Court erred in including the cost of freight in the taxable turnover of the appellant.
-
1987 (10) TMI 346 - SUPREME COURT
CENTRAL EXCISE — PROHIBITION — POWER OF STATE OF IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS CONTAINING COMPARATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL
-
1987 (10) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURT
Whether State has made profit by the sale of khandsari sugar at public auction?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Government issued instructions to distribute the levy sugar liberally through permits for marriages and religious functions. The consumers, however, could not come forward. The Government then directed the disposal of levy sugar by public auction. It was not with a view to earn profit although incidentally the Government made some profit. The levy sugar was brought to public sale only to prevent deterioration when the consumers refused to accept it. We have no reason to doubt the explanation given by the State Government.
-
1987 (10) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the levy of octroi by different municipalities within the State of Rajasthan on varying bases-some on weight of the material and others on the ad valorem basis of the price thereof at varying rates is valid in law?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the backdrop of a consolidating and uniform municipal legislation now operating in the field, the State Government may rationalise the rate structure prevalent in different municipal areas so that assessment of octroi would be convenient, a common method would be adopted, and the challenge which is raised now and again could be avoided-though we have made it clear that it would be competent for the State Government to allow varying rates in different municipalities keeping the provisions in section 104 of the Act in view.
-
1987 (10) TMI 315 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... shows that a person who is not an officer or an employee, whatsoever be the nature of the offence, cannot be subjected to prosecution thereunder by the company. Shri Chitale s contention is that section 630 of the Companies Act has to be so interpreted as not to defeat the very purpose behind it and, therefore, those abetting the offence under section 630 of the Act must be held liable for prosecution thereunder along with the officer or the employee concerned. On a careful consideration, I find that in view of the express terms of the provision extracted above, the contention of the non-applicant s learned counsel is wholly devoid of merit. As the provision embodied in section 630 of the Companies Act does not contemplate prosecution of the petitioners thereunder, the proceedings in question so far as they relate to them deserves to be dropped and in exercise of the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are accordingly ordered to be dropped.
-
1987 (10) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Best judgment assessment ... ... ... ... ..... is not as good as the quality of the goods imported by Suhag Traders and we also note that the present consignment is one returned by an earlier customer though that does not necessarily mean that the goods were defective. The appellants also conceded before us that it was not their case that the goods were defective. Therefore, we feel that the price in respect of Suhag Traders less 33 l/3 deg /o will be a fair basis for fixing the value of the goods imported by the appellants. Such a conclusion would bring down the value of the goods, for purposes of assessment and ITC to Rs. 2,23,147. We note that the appellants produced licences for goods worth Rs. 1,28,033. This would leave goods valued at Rs.95,114 as uncovered by licences. 21. Keeping this in view, we order that (i) redemption fine imposed be reduced to Rs. 75,000/- (ii) the penalty imposed be reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. 22. Customs duty should be charged on the value ordered by us. 23. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
........
|
