|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 287 Records
-
1988 (8) TMI 401
... ...
... ... ..... usk under a notification issued by the State Government under section 12 of the Act whereas the order of the Tribunal does not show any such contention having been raised before it. The sixth question likewise arises out of disputed facts inasmuch as the assessee asserts to have contended that certain quantity of goods sold on bills had returned and were sold in the following years, but the tax was imposed in spite of cancellation of bills, the learned Tribunal has held that no arguments were advanced before it regarding the quantitative accounts in support of the assessee s contention in this behalf. 5.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Tribunal s order, we are of opinion that no question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order as has been contended by the assessee so as to require the Tribunal to refer the same to this Court. This application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 400
... ...
... ... ..... ssible for the Board of Revenue to order that the time spent in pursuing the revision application should not be counted in calculating the period of limitation for filing of the appeal. With regard to question No. 2 it is held that it was not permissible for the Board of Revenue to order that the stay order shall continue to remain in force until the disposal of the appeal. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the directions given in the order dated 22nd October, 1970 passed by the single Member of the Board of Revenue, which have been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in its order dated 30th November, 1972 directing that the time spent in pursuing the revision applications should not be counted in calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeals and that the stay order passed in the revision applications shall continue to remain in force until the disposal of the appeals, are set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 399
... ...
... ... ..... e has filed this application to require the Tribunal to make a reference of those questions. 4.. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption for the inter-State sale of pulses under the notification dated 9th December, 1980 issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act? 5.. Accordingly, the application is allowed. We direct the learned Tribunal to state the case and refer the above questions of law to this Court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 398
... ...
... ... ..... y be at all points or at any specified point or to any specified class of persons. In other words under section 9 there could be a general exemption. As already adverted to supra, the exemption in respect of tapioca covered by G.O. Ms. No. 930 was a general exemption falling squarely within the ambit of section 9(1)(i). In respect of the specified class of goods-tapioca-exemption was granted from the purchase point and as the goods were not taxable at any other point, the exemption was at all points . For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the petitioner-assessee, in respect of three years in question, was not entitled to exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the turnovers of tapioca powder. The question is accordingly answered in favour of the petitionerassessee and against the Revenue. The disputed turnovers shall be excluded from the levy under the Central Sales Tax Act. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 397
... ...
... ... ..... )(e) of the Act. 6.. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, has referred the question of law as stated at the outset. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of this case we have come to the conclusion that the Board of Revenue was right in holding that where a case has been reopened under section 19(1) of the Act and no penalty has been imposed thereunder, where all the returns have been furnished during the assessment period and tax has been deposited along with returns during the assessment period, the case of the assessee, nonapplicant, would be covered under section 38(3)(a) of the Act and not under section 38(3)(e) of the Act. 8.. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs of this reference which shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1988 (8) TMI 396
... ...
... ... ..... ts there is loss of oil content and further the salted and fried groundnuts are much more expensive and no one uses them for the purpose of extracting oil and in common parlance salted and fried groundnuts cannot be said to be oil-seeds used principally for the extraction of oil. The learned Members of the Board of Revenue were, therefore, not right in holding that fried and salted groundnuts are oil-seeds and the sales of fried and salted groundnuts by the assessee were entitled to exemption to tax. Question No. 2 is, therefore, decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the fried and salted groundnuts cannot be regarded as oil-seeds and sales of fried and salted groundnuts are not entitled to exemption from tax. The revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The assessing authority will take necessary steps to rectify the assessments in accordance with this order. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 395
... ...
... ... ..... activity, nevertheless in so far as the assessee-Devasthanam is concerned, it does partake the character of functional integrality and, therefore, the turnover on this, must be excluded from tax. The third activity, which should not detain us long in answering, is the sale of human hair. The human hair that is offered by the pilgrims who visit the temple in fulfilment of their vow, is taken by the Devasthanam and the same is sold just as in case of scrap material. The accumulation of the same would cause difficulty in storing and also hazardous to the health. In this case, the Devasthanam disposes of the human hair periodically, which activity cannot by any stretch constitute as commercial. Hence, this item also cannot be held to be exigible to tax. Resultantly, the contentions advanced on behalf of the revisionist are devoid of merits and the same are rejected. Consequently, the tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 300 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 394
... ...
... ... ..... ority for further inquiry. While concluding the matter, it may be observed that the effect of the order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner is that the assessment in so far as it relates to the liability of the respondent on the turnover of tarameera has been set aside and the respondent would be held liable for payment of tax on the same only if, on remand, it is found that the Bharatpur principals have not paid tax on the same turnover. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 9th February, 1981 passed by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 54/1980/RST/Jaipur and the order dated 16th April, 1984 passed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in D.B. Special Appeal No. 42181/ST/Jaipur are set aside and the order dated 15th March, 1980 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, remanding the matter to the assessing authority for further inquiry is restored. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 393
... ...
... ... ..... ax 1987 67 STC 43 (App.). Following that decision, another Bench of this Court has held in K.P. Sons v. Sales Tax Officer, Katni 1987 67 STC 38 that the sale of goods duly packed would also amount to sale of the packing material and that the price or cost or value of such packing material was deductible if it was tax-paid, in view of the explanation to section 2(o) of the Act and the provisions of section 2(r) of the Act. No decision to the contrary was brought to our notice and we, therefore, see no cogent reason for taking a view different from that taken in the aforesaid decisions. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to a deduction from his turnover under section 2(r)(ii) of the Act. 5.. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1988 (8) TMI 392
... ...
... ... ..... ht purchase a film, and, to use the expression, the film may be used up completely by its continuous and long exhibition, or it can be used only for a limited period, say even exhibiting for one show only. But it cannot be anything else than its use within the meaning of clause (kk) making the film suffer by the gradual process of being used up. In my view, this would be the only harmonious construction to further the intention of the legislature, and taking any other view would amount to frustrating its intention and be against the principles of a reasonable construction. 14.. On the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that the Division Bench has taken the correct view of the matter in 1986 61 CLT 254 (Balasore Talkies v. Municipalities). 15.. This writ application, therefore, must fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250 (two hundred and fifty). G.B. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 391
... ...
... ... ..... o carry on business in the sale of unserviceable and discarded material. From the foregoing, we have no hesitation to hold that the activities of the corporation do not constitute business within the meaning of section 2(1)(bbb) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a dealer within the meaning of section 2(1)(e) of the Act. If that be so, the sale of scrap material by the corporation in the course of its activities cannot be said to be an independent and unconnected with the main activity of the corporation so as to attract tax. It has not been established in this case that the subsidiary activity is a distinct and separate activity so as to attract tax. In our considered view, the subsidiary activity is an integral part of the main activity and, therefore, it must escape tax. Hence, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the T.R.Cs., but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 1,200. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 390
... ...
... ... ..... wording of the relevant entry at the material time, the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the sale of sewai was taxable at the rate referred to in 1982 VKN 321 (Kothari Kirana Store v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.) at 2 per cent as a form of cereal vide entry 4 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act. 5.. Our answer to the question referred by the Board is that the Board of Revenue, without ascertaining the wording of the relevant entry at the material time, was not justified in holding that the sale of sewai was taxable at 2 per cent as a form of cereal, vide entry No. 4 of Part IV of Schedule II to the Act. In our opinion, the matter regarding rate of tax applicable in the case of sale of sewai can only be decided after ascertaining the wording of the relevant entry in force at the material time. 6.. References answered accordingly. 7.. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1988 (8) TMI 389
... ...
... ... ..... f Rs. 10,43,767.83. In other words the assessing authority has added Rs. 11,000 to the taxable turnover for the purpose of assessing the tax. The fact that the assessing authority has added to the turnover a sum of Rs. 11,000 towards charges received by way of tulai , shows that the said charges were not included in the sale price but were separately charged or otherwise, there was no necessity of making any addition to the turnover. In case the weighing charges had not been separately charged and were included in the sale price then the assessee would have claimed exemption of the said charges if he wanted an exemption on the same. He did not do so. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold that tulai has not been separately charged by the assessee from the customers in respect of the sale transactions, but was included in the sale price. In the circumstances I find no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 388
... ...
... ... ..... re not otherwise barred and if there is no other impediment under the Act and the Rules. We have already held that the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot have any retrospective operation and it would only be effective on and from the date it was notified in the Assam Gazette on 25th June, 1969 and not from 1st January, 1968. Therefore, no interest would be leviable under the Rules in case of those dealers to whom demand notices were issued for the period ending 31st March, 1968, 30th September, 1968 and 31st March, 1969 except the liabilities as imposed under section 22A of the Act. We also accordingly hold that the demand notices to the dealers asking them to pay interest as per demand notices without following the procedure as prescribed under section 12 of the Act are set aside and quashed. In the result all the petitions are disposed of in terms as aforesaid. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. SANGMA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (8) TMI 387
... ...
... ... ..... justment, then the assessee is entitled to simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of six months. The six months period, in the present case, expires on 7th June, 1988. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid refund along with simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of refund. Since the assessee exercised the option to receive the refund by way of adjustment for the monthly taxes due for the year 1988-89, the interest will be liable to be paid till the whole amount of refund is discharged. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is also entitled to the costs of the present proceedings, particularly in view of the reply dated 18th June, 1988, sent by the Commercial Tax Officer mentioned earlier a copy of which was also endorsed to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad, which are assessed at Rs. 1,100. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 386
... ...
... ... ..... l is that there is difference between a dealer who being unable to sell the goods within the State thereafter exports it for sale outside the State and another dealer who makes this export immediately. Thereafter the only thing said is that in the circumstances of the case the penalty is reduced from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 1,500. It was incumbent on the Tribunal to indicate the circumstances which weighed with it for making the reduction. However, they have not even been disclosed. No doubt the Tribunal had jurisdiction to impose a reduced penalty while setting aside the Deputy Commissioner s order but some indication should have been given of the manner in which the reduction was made. This not having been done the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal was improper. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal shall now decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 385
... ...
... ... ..... . Sales Tax Act on the disputed liability of tax on the corrugated sheets is leviable on the assessee. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the Tribunal is in error in upholding the levy of interest by stating that the assessee has only laid his claim by stating incorrect facts. In my opinion, this cannot be a valid ground under section 8(1) of the Act. What is to be seen in such a situation is as to whether the claim was bona fide or not. No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the said claim of the assessee was not bona fide. In this situation, this part of the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside. 5.. In the result, all the three revisions succeed in part and are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 3rd October, 1986 is set aside to the extent it upholds that the assessee is liable to pay disputed interest on corrugated sheets. Costs on parties. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 384
... ...
... ... ..... . Singhal is accepted then it would result in great anomaly and would be rather against the provisions contained in section 14-B(2) of the Act. In a given case, the order of the Tribunal might be communicated on an earlier date to the Commissioner and come to the notice of the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer after a very long time and in that case if the argument of Mr. Singhal is accepted the period would commence from the date when the order of the Tribunal was received by the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. Thus, the interpretation put by Mr. Singhal cannot be accepted. I also find support in my above view in a recent order dated February 5, 1988, passed by Milap Chand, J. sitting at Jodhpur in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Madhav Medical Agency, S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 169 of 1987. In the result, this revision is held within limitation and preliminary objection raised by the assessee is dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 383
... ...
... ... ..... charges do not form part of the purchase price has been approved by the Supreme Court. But in the case on hand, this point has no nexus nor, if we may say so, has any relevance. Hence it is of little or no assistance to the respondent. In so far as the proposition that falls for determination in the case on hand it is fully covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1980 46 STC 477 (1980) 4 SCC 451, and in the latest decision reported in Central Wines v. Special Commercial Tax Officer 1987 65 STC 48. Their Lordships were categorical that the decision laid down in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1980 46 STC 477 (SC) (1980) 4 SCC 451, does not require any reconsideration. Hence, the market cess indisputably collected under statutory obligation in this case cannot, therefore, be said to form part of the taxable turnover. Hence, the Tax Revision Cases are dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 382
... ...
... ... ..... ng the period for which the tax is due shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax unless he proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in case of misfeasance or breach of duty only the petitioner can be compelled to pay the penalty or the tax. Since he was not an active director, he cannot be now called upon to pay the tax as well as the penalty. This contention is untenable, because at no point of time, it has been proved that it was due to misfeasance or breach of duty he had been called upon to pay the tax amount or penalty. All the directors were issued notices and he, as one among the directors, is liable to pay under the Act. Thus, we find that there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
........
|
