|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 310 Records
-
1987 (2) TMI 492
... ...
... ... ..... hops. The article in question is not allowed to be sold in any shop which is not licensed under the Arms Act. The question of law must therefore be considered in the light of these facts. Whether viewed in the technical sense, as defined under the Arms Act, or in the popular sense, as understood by those dealing in the goods, or according to the dictionary meaning, and on the admitted facts, the fuse sold by the assessee is nothing short of a component in the manufacture or use of arms and ammunition. The decision of this Court in Sales Tax Officer v. P.K. Navi O.S. Chandran 1981 47 STC 194 has no application to the facts of this case. 3.. In the circumstances, the Tribunal, in our view, misunderstood the scope and language of entry 18 as well as the nature of the article in question. Accordingly we set aside the orders of the appellate authorities and restore that of the assessing authority. The tax revision cases are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 491
... ...
... ... ..... ed that the legislature intended an administrative order also to be taken in revision before the High Court and thereafter in appeal to the Supreme Court. Having regard to the scheme of the aforesaid provisions and the amendment made by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1979 and the decision of the Division Bench aforesaid, in my opinion the interpretation that is to be put on the words shall be final as occurring in sub-clause (5) of section 35 of the Act is that after an appeal against an order under section 35 of the Act is decided by the Tribunal, no further revision lies to the High Court. Any other interpretation of the words shall be final as occurring in the aforesaid sub-clause will render the same redundant. The counsel for the parties have, however, made a prayer that these revisions may be converted into writ petitions. The said prayer is, however, refused. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed as not maintainable. Parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 490
... ...
... ... ..... s, held that woollen cardigans and pullovers are treated in commercial circles as articles of hosiery and not as woollen goods. The matter has thus come up before us for final disposal. The question formulated, in our opinion, does not require any further arguments. The Tribunal has reached the conclusion, on the facts and circumstances before it, that the articles like woollen pullovers and cardigans are considered as hosiery in common parlance and commercial circle. That is a finding of fact binding on this Court in the revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Under the said section, revision lies only on a question of law, as it is evident from sub-sections (4) and (8) thereof. We, therefore, accept the finding recorded by the Tribunal in regard to the articles in question and hold that the turnover relating to woollen pullovers and cardigans was liable to be taxed as hosiery goods. In the circumstances of the case, we make disposed of (sic). Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 489
... ...
... ... ..... there is no period of limitation. The powers which are contained under section 48(6) are not powers to reopen an earlier assessment which has become final nor is it a power to rectify an earlier order, which power is given by section 48(1) and (2) nor is it a power of revision which is contained in section 46. The power under section 48(6) is a power of review simpliciter. If, therefore, there was an error apparent on the face of the order dated 10th April, 1978, then the power of review may have been exercised but in the present case there was no such error apparent on the face of the said order. No action could, therefore, be taken in the present case, under section 48(6) and in fact the assessing authority has not purported to act under the said provision. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the assessment order dated 12th September, 1986 is quashed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 488
... ...
... ... ..... re not entitled to add the sales tax in the procurement price so fixed in Schedule III. Once it is so conceded that the procurement price fixed under Schedule III of the said Levy Order is exclusive of taxes, then, the petitioners can have no grievance, because they will be entitled to add the sales tax in the procurement price on which they are to deliver the rice under the aforesaid Levy Order. Thus, the position that emerges is this that after the Forty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and the amendment of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, by Act No. 11 of 1984, which came into force retrospectively with effect from February 2, 1983, the State Government will be entitled to levy sales tax on the dealers in regard to the transactions of procurement of rice with effect from February 2, 1983, under the aforementioned Levy Order. 6.. Thus, these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. D.S. TEWATIA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 487
... ...
... ... ..... place where the assessee s place of business is situated. The decision of this Court in the case of Caltex (India) Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1978 42 STC 21 supports the aforesaid view. It also further reveals from the facts averred in the writ petition that there is no material to treat the assessee-firm as a dealer carrying on business of purchasing and selling in Orissa. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on appeal in respect of the preceding year has come to the aforesaid conclusion. Since the assessee is not a dealer in Orissa, the impugned order of assessment cannot be sustained. 5.. In the result, therefore, the order of assessment as per annexure-6 is set aside. The assessee is entitled to get back by way of refund the payment already made in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 23rd March, 1979. The writ application is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. RATH, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 486
... ...
... ... ..... UPTC 131 and then the Supreme Court with the consent of the parties set aside the order of the High Court as also two separate orders of the Tribunal and directed that both the appeals of the assessee as well as of the Revenue would be reheard on the same day and they would be disposed of by a common judgment to avoid any further difficulty. In this case also, both the parties agree that both the cross appeals be disposed of together by the Tribunal by a common judgment on the same day. In view of this express consent of the parties, the revision is allowed, both the order of the Tribunal, dated 27th October, 1983 passed in the appeal of the Revenue and the order dated 14th August, 1986 passed in the appeal of the assessee are set aside, both the appeals are restored to the Tribunal with a direction that both appeals of the Revenue as well as of the assessee will be disposed of by a common order on the same day afresh according to law. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 485
... ...
... ... ..... he same before the Tribunal. The submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that it was for the Tribunal to reject the application for such reason and that the error committed by the Tribunal is that it omitted to consider the application for condonation of delay altogether. When the application for condonation of delay was made to the Tribunal, I agree with the assessee that the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and ought to have recorded a clear finding on the questions whether or not it was open to the assessee to make an application for condonation of delay for the first time before the Tribunal and whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the result, both the revisions are allowed, the Tribunal s order dated 24th March, 1986, is set aside and the cases are sent back to the Tribunal with a direction that it will dispose of the application (annexure 3) and then decide the appeals according to law. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 484
... ...
... ... ..... the department unless asked for. The better course would be to give an opportunity to the department as a matter of course to verify the material and produce evidence or material in rebuttal. In the instant case, the Tribunal has given reasons for accepting the sale accounts and the affidavit and the explanations given by the assessee. These reasons appear to be well-founded and are a matter of appreciation of the material placed before it. It cannot be said that the Tribunal was legally wrong in accepting the material which was placed before it by the assessee in order to discharge the burden which lay on it under sub-section (1) of section 6-A of the Act. On a consideration of the above material the Tribunal was justified in accepting the disputed sales as consignment sales. The answer to both the questions of law is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the result, this revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (2) TMI 483
... ...
... ... ..... tituted section 15 of the Act, it has now been heard as a revision. The facts found by the Board of Revenue and about which there is no controversy, clearly indicate that the sale transaction related only to snuff, and the tin containers in which, snuff sold, were not separately charged for. It is also clear that a container was necessary for effecting the sale of snuff, which could not be carried otherwise. In such a situation, the requirement of the last proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, was clearly satisfied as held by the Tribunal. I find support for this view from a Division Bench of this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Moolchand Jainarain 1987 64 STC 300 1985 15 STL (Raj) 257. This conclusion alone is sufficient to hold that there is no ground for interference in this revision. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Since none has appeared for the non-petitioner to oppose, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 482
... ...
... ... ..... r activity manufacture may, even if theoretically possible, be commercially inexpedient, goods intended for use in the process or activity as specified in rule 13 will qualify for special treatment. The above test laid down by the Supreme Court, clearly indicates that if commercial expediency requires the use of such goods as a lubricant in the process of manufacture of pulses and that process if so integrally connected with the ultimate production of pulses, then, the same would be a raw material as specified in the definition since it would be lubricant required for the process of manufacture of pulses. The facts found by the Tribunal clearly satisfy this test. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the edible oil so purchased and used by the dealer in the process of manufacture of pulses, is a raw material within the meaning of section 2(mm) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Consequently s the department s revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 481
... ...
... ... ..... oucher, because a small man selling scraps of a paltry amount to the assessee, may live in an improvised house and he may not be having any regular accommodation, which is subjected to house tax, etc., and, therefore, that may not be numbered by the Municipal Board or the Town Area. Since this exercise has not been done by the Revenue in this case, no adverse inference can be drawn from the absence of house number in the vouchers. Looking to the past and the future assessments, I hold that the Tribunal was not right in upholding the inference that the purchases of scrap were made from outside U.P. There is no good reason to disbelieve the contention of the assessee that all purchases were made from within U.P., which are not taxable. The revision is allowed, the orders of the authorities below are set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal for passing an order under section 11(8) of the Act, accepting the book version. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 480
... ...
... ... ..... her goods except footwear. The question for decision in these revisions is directly covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Sales Tax Reference No. 4 of 1972 State of Rajasthan v. Liberty Sports 1984 57 STC 333 decided on 6th March, 1984, in which it was clearly held that the aforesaid specific entry reading, all items of leather goods except footwear is wide enough to cover the sale transactions of leather covers of volleyball and football and, therefore, there is no occasion to resort to the residuary entry as claimed by the dealer. Following the aforesaid Division Bench decision, the same view has to be taken in both these revisions. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the contrary view. Consequently, both these revisions of the department are allowed, and it is held that football and volleyball covers made of leather fall within item No. 39 and are, therefore, taxable at the rate of 7 per cent. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 479
... ...
... ... ..... n. It permits deduction of any amount which is allowed from the price in respect of any sale, and the expression in cash or other discount is wide enough to cover a deduction of this kind given out of the price of the goods. The fact that the deduction was given at a subsequent date while actually ascertaining the sale price does not adversely affect this consequence or construction of explanation (iii) to section 2(t). In substance, turnover means the aggregate of the amount of sale prices received or receivable by a dealer, and therefore, taxable turnover cannot obviously include an amount not received by the dealer as a part of the sale price. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in the view it has taken. This conclusion is re-enforced by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Motor Industries Co. 1983 53 STC 48. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 478
... ...
... ... ..... does not require any elaborate consideration. It is obvious that the power to award costs, is a matter within the discretion of the authority, and must, therefore, be accepted. In this regard, I find support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. English Wine Provision Stores 1977 CTR Raj 25. Nothing is shown in support of the contrary conclusion. This power does not depend on the existence of an express provision, which, at best, merely reiterates a power which is inherent in the constitution of the authority itself which is set up for adjudication of the matters before it. There is neither any principle nor any authority in support of the contrary view. This being the only point involved for decision in these revisions, the same must be dismissed. Consequently, these -revisions are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. The matter shall now proceed before the Tribunal in accordance with law. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 477
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal. The Division Bench, therefore, acted illegally in reversing the decision of the Single Bench without first recording the requisite findings to support the contrary conclusion. It follows that on the basis of finding of fact recorded by the Single Bench of the Tribunal, which remained unreversed, the conclusion that these transactions amounted to inter-State sales, is irresistible and inescapable. Learned counsel for the assessee advanced several arguments to support the conclusion reached by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. In my opinion, on the above conclusion based on the findings of fact, no further question arises for consideration. Consequently, this revision is allowed, the order of the Division Bench of the Tribunal dated February 16, 1979, is set aside and that of the Single Bench of the Tribunal dated June 14, 1977, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities that these transactions were of inter-State sales, is restored. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (2) TMI 475
Whether the administrative surcharge and price equalisation charge could be legitimately included in the turnover of the appellant assessable to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- The appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court and the Appellate Tribunal are set aside in respect of the administrative surcharge and the price equalisation charge included in the assessments of the appellant for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. The tax paid by the appellant in respect of these two items shall be refunded by the respondents expeditiously.
-
1987 (2) TMI 474
Whether the respondent was entitled to charge sales tax over and above the listed price as indicated in the price list?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed and confirm the order passed by the High Court. The High Court has taken the view that the parties were fully aware of the prices and terms and conditions in regard to charging of sales tax extra as mentioned in the price list. "Ruling prices" according to the said terms and conditions were subject to the sales tax being paid extra in case sales tax liability came into existence and Accordingly there was no error apparent on the face of the award. We think that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable.
-
1987 (2) TMI 472
The High Court was right in the view taken by it and these appeals must fail.
For the reasons set forth in our judgment dated February 18, 1987 in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Kalpana Krishna Mohan (Civil Appeals Nos. 4277-80 of 1986), these appeals must also fail.
-
1987 (2) TMI 468
How explanation to section 2(p)(i) inserted by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act, 1982, should be read with the explanation to section 27 also inserted by the same Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As directed by the High Court the marketing committee concerned can make assessment of fees only after giving the respondents an opportunity to show cause as laid down in the explanation to section 27. If the Government wants a stricter control over the transactions in the market area it is for them to suitably amend the explanation in question by excluding its operation from the explanation to section 27.
........
|
