|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 438 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the coir products purchased by the petitioners in pursuance to anterior contracts will not cease to be the same commodity and will not become a distinct and different commodity, merely because, the processes such as sheaving, smoking, webbing, stencilling, etc., are employed in order to make them more attractive or fit for export. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the goods exported by the petitioners are not the very same goods purchased, and so the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The decisions rendered by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 890 of 1981 and 644 of 1982 are reversed. The concerned assessing authority will give appropriate relief to the petitioners with regard to the coir products exported by them under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 4.. These tax revision cases are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 437 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ven in the absence of a demand by the assessing authority when a demand notice is issued under section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, there is nothing improper on the part of the village officer in realising the penal interest after quantification of the same with notice to the defaulter. Exhibit P6 demand had been issued by the second respondent, the village officer, without giving that opportunity and is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is liable to be quashed without prejudice to any proceedings being taken for recovery of interest computed after giving the defaulter an opportunity of being heard. The original petition is accordingly allowed, quashing exhibit P6 subject to the direction that it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the recovery proceedings for the balance payable towards tax and penal interest, if any, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 436 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the notification dated 15th November, 1971. This gives a sufficient clue that the shaving blades do not partake the character of stainless steel articles. Looking to the ordinary meaning of the blades as commonly understood in the commercial parlance, considering the scientific requirement of stainless steel and scanning the legislative history, the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached at is that Erasmic blades, though marked as stainless steel blades, are commercially not the stainless steel articles, that can be covered by entry 102 of the notification dated 7th December, 1979. For the reasons, it is held that the Erasmic blades manufactured by the assessee are liable to tax as unclassified item at the rate of 8 per cent. In the result, the revision is allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 28th February, 1986 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass a conforming order under section 11(8) of the Act, 1948. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 435 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of case, it has been observed that the notification dated 8th December, 1966, referred to by the Full Bench had been withdrawn with effect from 1st April, 1973, by the State Government. Mr. Misra submitted that on withdrawal of the notification, the decision of the Full Bench would no more have any effect. Answering the question as framed without necessary facts at this stage would be prejudicial to both the assessee-dealer and the Revenue. However, it can safely be concluded that non-consideration of the notification while setting aside the assessment in that regard makes the decision of the Tribunal vulnerable. The Tribunal is directed to consider the question afresh with reference to the said notification. 6.. In the result, question No. 1 is answered against the Revenue and question No. 2 is answered in a modified form in favour of the Revenue to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 434 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be, the effect will be the order will have to be read in a truncated manner which would not be permissible. Whether an interim order of stay is made by an appellate court or whether it is made by the State Government, the effect of either cancellation or withdrawal of such orders is the same. All interim orders have only a temporary effect and they can always be withdrawn or revoked by the court or the authority which makes them. In our view, there is no substance in these appeals. As an argument of last resort, it is submitted that some appeals have been admitted against similar orders vacating the injunction. We do not think that in the light of what we have said above that should be a consideration for admitting these appeals especially when the point appears to us to be so clear that it does not need any further consideration. The result would be the same if we were to admit these appeals and dispose them of immediately. Both the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 433 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation to the facts of the present case. It was urged on behalf of the non-petitioners that even no assessment under section 10 could be made after the expiry of 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year on account of the provisions contained in section 10-B of the Act. This contention has no force in it for the simple reason that section 10-B was inserted with effect from 7th April, 1979 by Rajasthan Act 4 of 1979. In the present case, the assessment proceedings under section 10(1)(b) had been initiated even prior to August 4, 1977 and that section 10-B of the Act had no retrospective application. I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the appellate order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated February 17, 1986 and remand the case to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, to restore appeal No. 135/81-82 filed by M/s. Jai Hind Medical Store before it and to decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 432 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reported decision, the finding of the Tribunal was just to the contrary, namely, that prawn and fish are two different commodities, unlike the present cases. It is submitted that in view of the well-established principle that the theory of res judicata will not apply to a proceeding of this nature, the reported decision would have no binding effect. 4.. We are, however, unable to accept the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. It is not a question of applying the principle of res judicata as such. In the reported case, the same notification and exactly the same item had fallen for consideration. Taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter, it was clearly laid down by this Court that qualitatively fish and prawn are two different commodities . 5.. The answer, therefore, to the question in all the cases must be given in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (8) TMI 431 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dment is violative of article 19(1)(g) also deserves to be rejected. The other argument ancillary to this contention that the amendment imposes unreasonable restriction on the traders, and therefore, cannot be justified under article 19(6), has also to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly. I further hold that the impugned amendment does not encroach upon or infringe on the right to practice any religion or faith, much less can be said to affect any religious sentiment or belief of any citizen. I, therefore, reject this contention of Sri B.P. Gandhi based on article 25. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part, and as a result of striking down section 43(11)(i), as inserted by section 14 of the amending Act (Karnataka Act 14 of 1987), I issue a further direction restraining the State from enforcing section 2(1)(x), as amended by Act 14 of 1987, for the current year commencing from the 1st of April and ending with 31st March, 1988. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 430 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se goods will be in the hands of the assessee, i.e., the contractor as tax-paid goods. 9.. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Sales Tax Officer committed a manifest error of law in taking the view that the turnover representing the sale price of shikakai and baibidang received by the petitioner from various customers, was taxable. It was apparently a case where shikakai and baibidang in question were in the hands of the petitioner as tax-paid goods at the time when they were sold by him. Since it was a case of single point taxation and the sales tax was to be paid on the first sale which had already been paid, the petitioner was not liable to any further sales tax. 10.. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 21st December, 1982 (annexure D to the writ petition) is quashed. No order as to costs. The outstanding security amount may be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 429 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... py of the order of the Tribunal passed in second appeal along with an application under subsection (1) of section 44 of the Act is to be found either in the Act or in the Rules. It is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that the Tribunal, namely, the Board of Revenue, in the instant case committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the applications made by the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act on the ground that certified copies of the order of the Tribunal had not been filed along with the said applications. 6.. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal, namely, the Board of Revenue, Motimahal, Gwalior, dated 14th May, 1982 (annexure C) is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to decide the applications made by the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 44 of the Act on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 428 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... since the effect of the exercise of the power will result in dire consequences to the assessee (dealer). It is not evident from a perusal of the order, dated 12th January, 1984, that the objections filed by the assessee dated 4th January, 1984 were either adverted to or disposed of in accordance with law. This is a fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the assessing authority dated 12th January, 1984. On this sole ground, we hold that the order passed by the assessing authority dated 12th January, 1984 cancelling the certificate of registration is invalid. The order of affirmance passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would equally be infirm. The Sales Tax Officer, Mannarghat, is directed to restore the proceedings to his file and dispose of the matter in accordance with law and after adverting to the objections filed by the assessee dated 4th January, 1984. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 427 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... enue by the Tribunal itself or in the alternative it could have sent the matter back to the first appellate authority or even to the assessing officer for making fresh assessment after taking the evidence into account brought on record during the appeal proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The Sales Tax Tribunal has not adopted this course. It is, therefore, necessary that the Tribunal may now be directed to do so particularly when the Tribunal itself has not considered the case on merit and applied its mind to the question whether the transactions in dispute were works contract as asserted by the assessee. In the result, this revision succeeds. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with a direction to restore the appeal to its original number and to decide it afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations in this judgment after giving due notice to the assessee. The assessee shall be entitled to his cost. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 426 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ol Chand Multan Singh, Baraut. The assessee having clearly stated in the explanation dated 25th September, 1985 that the aforesaid party be summoned for examination with the account books, the Tribunal was wrong in making the contrary observation. When the entries made in the books of account of a third party are pressed into service to make reassessment, it is the duty of the assessing officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee on whom the reassessment is sought to be made to examine that party and this could have been made only if the assessing officer had summoned M/s. Mool Chand Multan Singh with the account books, as prayed by the assessee. In the result, the reassessment order is set aside, and the case is sent back to the assessing officer with a direction that he will summon M/s. Mool Chand Multan Singh of Baraut with the account books to enable the assessee to examine the said party and thereafter decide the case afresh. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 425 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been given by the Tribunal on that score, but it is a matter of common knowledge that now-a-days, coir industry in South has been producing very attractive and fancy coir matting in which nothing but coir yarn is used and, therefore, it cannot be said that coir yarn is not used in weaving. Weaving does not mean the weaving of fine fabric by cotton or silken thread made of fine yarn only. But weaving by coir yarn for making coir matting used as a substitute of woollen or other carpets for spreading over the floors is also weaving. There is no other process of making the coir matting except the weaving and that is apparent from any coir matting. For the reasons, I agree with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and hold that the coir yarn was rightly taxed as a classified item at the rate of 2 per cent being covered by the entry at serial No. 1 of the notification, reproduced above. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 424 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... overed under section 4A. And insistence on producing a certificate in form XC is also necessary to effectively implement the provisions of section 4A(6). I, therefore, uphold sub-section (6) of section 4A as a provision incidental to and necessary for implementing the provision of the Act and preventing the evasion of tax. But, in view of the provisions and the rule prescribed, it is necessary to issue a mandamus to the State Government in the following terms (i) to prescribe the authority who is competent to issue the certificate in form XC (ii) to provide for the procedure in the Rules for issue of the certificate (iii) to impose corresponding obligation on such local authority to issue the certificate as per the rules to be prescribed and (iv) to provide for a remedy to the exhibitor in case of refusal or delay to issue the certificate. It is also made clear that the impugned provisions shall not be enforced until the above directions are complied with. Order accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 423 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld be necessary in the interests of Revenue. Sub-section (6) of section 4A, as inserted by Amendment Act 22 of 1985 has been upheld by me as valid provision in a separate order made by me today in W.P. No. 13638 of 1986 (Nirmala Chitra Mandira v. State of Karnataka) (printed at page 264 supra). That this is the position and the two rules overlap, is not disputed by Sri Dattu. After the hearing was adjourned last time, Sri Dattu submits, on instructions today that the department would not insist on the maintenance of register in form XB. But at the same time, it would be in the interests of Revenue to insist on the compliance of production of a certificate in form XC as prescribed under section 4A(6) of the Act. In view of this submission, it would be unnecessary to deal with the other contentions of the petitioners and decide the question. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of without going into the merits of the contentions. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 422 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ser was negatived by this Court in the said authority and this Court then observed Poles might be needed for running electricity but by that they do not become accessory of electrical plant or equipment. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the Standing Counsel that the clamps and channels are accessories of electrical equipment or plant, because they are used for giving support to the electrical wires on the electric poles. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that they are liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent for the assessment year 1973-74 and at the rate of 3 per cent for the assessment year 1969-70. The tax for the assessment year 1973-74 so far as channel is concerned, is beyond the pale of controversy, because under section 14(iv)(v) steel structurals include channels as well and under that provision the rate of tax is only 4 per cent. In the result, the revisions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 421 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... licate. The language of the section permits such interpretation. To further liberalise the scope as suggested by Mr. Agarwala would be a violation of the requirement of section 5(2)(B) of the Act. 7.. Mr. Agarwala relied upon another decision of this Court in S.J.C. No. 99 of 1980 decided on 28th February, 1987 (State of Orissa v. Orissa Small Industries Corporation) (unreported) dagger where it has been held that a transfer of goods to another State which is not sale under the Central Sales Tax Act can be proved otherwise than furnishing the F form in view of the language of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. In this case, the specific language of section 5(2)(B) is otherwise. Accordingly, the said decision is of no assistance to Mr. Agarwala. 8.. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the question referred to by the Tribunal is answered against the assessee. There shall, however, be no order for costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (8) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere not right in having presumed the U.P. sales. For the reasons, the turnover of U.P. sales determined at Rs. 24,000 by the Tribunal has to be deleted. This disposes of the revision relating to the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Coming to the revision relating to the Central Sales Tax Act, Sri Bharatji Agrawal argued that no enhancement can be made under the Central Sales Tax Act, unless there is material on record that there was a contract which might have occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another. I do not agree with Sri Bharatji Agrawal. When the book version was rejected, best judgment assessment has got to be made. So the Tribunal was right in estimating the Central sales at Rs. 90,000 as against the Central sales shown at Rs. 65,731 by the assessee. I do not see any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in this regard. In the result, the revision relating to U.P. sales is allowed and the revision relating to Central sales is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 419 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eferred to the rate of Rs. 200. He urges that the assessee showed the average rate at Rs. 105 only and in support of that he adduced evidence also. This contention requires reconsideration. The question is as to what is the basis of the rate of Rs. 200 which the assessing officer took into consideration for taking the averege rate of Rs. 150 per 1,000. The other question is as to how the sole instance of Rs. 105 for which the evidence was adduced by the assessee, is not relevant for the case of the assessee. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The case is sent back to the Tribunal on a limited point of sale rate with a direction that it will record a clear finding as to what is the basis of the rate of Rs. 200 which was considered to arrive at the average rate of Rs. 150 per 1,000 bricks. Thereafter, the case will be decided afresh considering the evidence of the assessee adduced on the point of rate according to law. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
........
|
