|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 216 Records
-
1988 (9) TMI 329
... ...
... ... ..... eputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur 1959 10 STC 199 (AP). Following these decisions, we are of the view that the word groundnut used in section 14(vi)(i) of the Central Act would include both shelled and unshelled groundnuts. Now if shelled or unshelled groundnut is liable to tax under entry No. 4 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act, we are unable to understand as to how and why the shell or the husk of groundnut should be subjected to higher rate of tax under entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the husk of groundnut was liable to tax under entry No. 4 of Part IV of Schedule II of the Act and not under entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II of the Act. Accordingly we answer the said question of law in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4.. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1988 (9) TMI 328
... ...
... ... ..... nning). See also Ormond Investment Co. v. Belts 1928 AC 143 at page 164 (HL) . Where it is gathered from a later Act that the legislature attached a certain meaning to certain words in an earlier cognate Act this would be taken as a legislative declaration of its meaning. (From Dore v. Gray 2 TR 358). Entry 49 as amended by Act 27 of 1985, therefore, gives a clear indication as to the intention of the legislature for the purpose of understanding and interpreting the entry before amendment. It is seen that the amended entry is made comprehensive to include all types of imitation jari. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the interpretation of the entry before amendment that it was meant to tax only the goldthread or jari and not any other kind of imitation jari. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed, and the notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in each case, under section 21(4) of the Act, are quashed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 327
... ...
... ... ..... ions contained in Government letters dated 17th March, 1988 and 23rd March, 1988, to the extent they provide that the period of exemption for units whose defined date of production fell after 1st October, 1982 but prior to 29th January, 1985 shall be governed under notification dated 27th August, 1984, units whose defined date of production fell between 29th January, 1985 and 25th December, 1985 shall be governed by notification dated 29th January, 1985, and units whose defined date of production falls after 26th December, 1985, shall be governed by notification dated 26th December, 1985, are quashed as they are contrary to the period of exemption indicated in the statutory notifications, contained in annexures 2 and 4, and 3 and 5. The petitioner is entitled to exemption for a period of seven years as provided in the aforesaid notifications dated 29th January, 1985 and 26th December, 1985. In the facts of this case there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 326
... ...
... ... ..... tes that have been issued to the petitioners under the Incentive Schemes would be operative with effect from the dates of the applications submitted by the petitioners and not with effect from the date of issuance of the said certificates. The petitioners are entitled to exemption from tax under the Incentive Schemes on the basis of the eligibility certificates with effect from the date of submission of the applications and the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under section 7-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 7-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act in respect of the period subsequent to the date of submission of the applications for grant of the eligibility certificates and the demand notices issued by the assessing authorities for the recovery of the tax assessed under the assessment orders are quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs in these writ petitions. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 325
... ...
... ... ..... t Order 1971 as an outright exemption under section 5 of the Act or acted on it either in setting up the unit or by not recovering the sales tax from the consumers. It also failed to lay down even the minimum acceptable factual foundation for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In this view of the matter it is neither necessary for this Court to consider the exceptions as carved out by the Supreme Court in Godfrey Philip s case AIR 1986 SC 806 or even to determine as to whether or not a writ can be issued directing the respondent-State to issue a notification under section 5 of the Act or the nature of the power which the State exercises while issuing such a notification. These questions can be dealt with in such a case where they require consideration. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed but without making any order as to costs. The interim directions staying the recovery of sales tax and penalty, etc., are hereby vacated. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 324
... ...
... ... ..... the contention of the Corporation that they are unable to pay tax could not be accepted and that is a finding of fact with which we could not interfere in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, therefore, neither we can substitute the satisfaction of the appellate authority on the question whether the dealer is unable to pay tax or not, nor can we in any circumstances modify the provisions of the Act, so as to enable the assessee not to pay tax merely on the ground that he is confident that on merits no tax is liable. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, we direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date on which it is admitted. The writ petitioner is also given time for depositing the amount within a period of two months. If the amount is deposited within a period of two months, the appeal shall be taken on file and admitted. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 323
... ...
... ... ..... n the definition of sale under the Central Sales Tax Act sales by commission agents have also been included. The assessee himself despatched those goods to ex-U.P. buyers and charged commission from them also in the beejaks issued to them. These beejaks which were issued later on, i.e., after 22nd August, 1981 show that the assessee despatched the goods in the course of inter-State trade and therefore the contention that U.P. sales were made is not accepted. This contention of the learned counsel also is therefore not accepted. Learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to satisfy me that there is any error whatsoever in the aforesaid findings arrived at by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In this view of the matter, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal relating to the dispute of sale of gur. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay order dated 20th July, 1987 is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 322
... ...
... ... ..... the great hardship to the growers resulting from the heavy payments from out of the pool fund during this year towards the arrears of tax payable under the Sales Tax Act by the Board consequent on the judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court. But all that we can do is to observe that this is a genuine case in which the Central Government should come to the rescue of the coffee growers by making special grants or subsidies to cover whole or part of the said liability as requested in the second part of the resolution of the Board. 19.. In the result, we answer the question set out first as follows The respondent-Coffee Board is authorised in law to pay the tax which it is liable to pay to the Karnataka Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, out of the pool fund which it is required to maintain, under section 30 of the Coffee Act, 1942, and make the following order The writ petitions are dismissed without order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 321
... ...
... ... ..... r, Nannilam Taluk, (2) District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur v. Azha Kumari 1985 Writ LR 240 (Mad.) wherein it was held that by operation of section 24 of the Act, when notices of assessment are served upon the assessee and if default occurs, a charge is created on the properties of the assessee and if he transfers those properties in favour of third person, the department is entitled to proceed against the transferee and the question of bona fide does not arise for consideration. But in the instant case, the facts are clearly different. As stated earlier, on the date when the notice of assessment was served on Jinnah and on the expiry of 21 days thereafter when the liability to pay the tax arose, Jinnah was not the owner of the property and he came to acquire the property long after in the year 1980. Hence this contention of the learned Government Advocate has no force. 8.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 320
... ...
... ... ..... ion that section 37(1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character of penalty. In any case, it is clear from the provisions of section 30-C that the assessing authority can find the consumer and pass appropriate orders for refund. Even if there is no such express provision, the constitutional validity of section 30-C cannot be challenged as beyond the scope of entry 54. In view of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Limited 1977 40 STC 497 AIR 1977 SC 2279 there are no merits in the submission that section 30-C is constitutionally invalid and beyond the legislative power of the State Legislature or that it is violative of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, the petitioner has got an alternate remedy and he can avail of it. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 319
... ...
... ... ..... e Court in this case arose in a suit, and not in a writ petition. For the above reasons we are not inclined to grant the relief of refund. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions (1) It is declared that no sales tax is payable by the petitioner on the royalty and extraction charges payable by it under the agreement entered into by it with the State for supply of bamboo and hardwood. Consequently the State shall not demand or collect any sales tax on the said account, i.e., with effect from 1st November, 1985 onwards. (2) So far as the claim of refund of the sales tax is concerned (which claim is said to relate to the period 27th March, 1978 to 31st October, 1985) it is refused following the Bench decision of this Court in N.V. Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1986 AP 361 and also in view of section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (9) TMI 318
... ...
... ... ..... f the State. Hence, this revision petition before this Court. The assessee has not appeared before this Court despite service of notice. In view of the fact that the assessee has admitted that unaccounted goods to the tune of Rs. 7,899 were lying in the stock of the assessee and he has not paid the tax, there remains nothing to be decided by the assessing authority. The assessee admitted in his statement, annexure B, on the record on oath that the tax was not paid by him. In view of the categorical admission there was no difficulty for the assessing authority to have levied the penalty as aforesaid. In view of the categorical admission by the assessee, there was no occasion to interfere with the order of assessment either by the appellate authority or by the Tribunal. In the result, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order dated 22nd September, 1986, passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 22nd November, 1984, passed by the appellate authority. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 317
... ...
... ... ..... given the benefit of rule 3(66a) for 3 years only on the ground that it could not apply within 14th April, 1983. As already observed the petitioner should not be deprived of the benefits to which it would have been entitled for the inaction and/or laches on the part of the respondentauthorities. Accordingly it is directed that the eligibility certificate granted by the respondents be treated to have been issued under rule 3(66) and the revisional authority will reconsider the said application and will grant renewal of the said certificate if the petitioner is so entitled in accordance with law considering the fact that it is entitled to tax holiday up to a period of 5 years with effect from the date when the first sale of manufactured goods took place. Accordingly the order passed by the revisional authority is quashed. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction as above. There will be no order as to costs. Liberty to mention. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (9) TMI 316
... ...
... ... ..... has already been said that annexure 5 is composite notice, and under annexure 1 dated 15th February, 1988, seven days time to deposit the amount was given and under annexure 2 dated 17th February, 1988, 15 days time was given for that purpose. Annexure 5 could not have been issued before the expiry of the aforesaid 7 days and 15 days time as aforesaid. It is not possible to sever a notice for demand raised under annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 and therefore it cannot be said that the notice annexure 5 relates to annexures 3 and 4 only. We are of the opinion that annexure 5 was not issued in accordance with the provisions of section 11-A of the RST Act and the Rules. 5.. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and hereby quash annexure 5 dated 18th February, 1988, but we direct the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Branch, Hindaun City, to hold the money for two weeks so that the assessing authority may take action in accordance with the rules. Costs made easy. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 315
Whether by reason of the absence of one of the members of a Departmental Promotion Committee at a meeting convened for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the promotion of officers to higher posts in the services under the Government of India the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee at the meeting would become invalid?
Held that:- Appeal disposed of. Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the case mainly on the ground that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 7.8.1986 were vitiated on account of the absence of the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence at that meeting. As adequate attention has not been given to the other aspects of the case which require fresh consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the Tribunal against which this appeal is filed and - remand the case to it to dispose it of afresh.
-
1988 (9) TMI 314
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction to the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi to construct a stall or a kiosk on the pavement near the OPD gate of the Irwin Hospital, Delhi within two months from the date of its order or in the alternative, to furnish a plan with requisite sanction to the respondent Gurnam kaur to enable her to construct a stall of her own?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The authorities in devising a scheme must endeavour to achieve a twin object viz., to preserve and maintain the beauty and the grandeur of this great historic city of Delhi from an aesthetic point of view, by reducing congestion on the public streets and removing all encroachments which cause obstruction to the free flow of traffic, and rehabilitate those unfortunate persons who by force of circumstances, are made to ply their trade or business on pavements or public streets. In the result, the appeal must succeed and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court is dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 313
Appellate Tribunal’s Order upholding penalty ... ... ... ... ..... id cases), who, in relation to any gold does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such gold liable to confiscation. It can also be imposed on any one who abets the doing or omission of such an act. Under these circumstances we are unable to understand as to why the firm and its partner cannot be adjudged guilty of contravening the provisions of Gold (Control) Act and be subjected to penalties under Section 74 of the Act. In the instant case as stated above, both the firm and its partner were issued separate show cause notices for their individual act or omission and ultimately found guilty. Hence under these circumstances the question of twice punishing the partner of the applicant firm for the same sets of acts does not arise. Thus neither on the facts of the case nor in the eye of law it can be said in the instant case that Shri Jagan Nath was twice punished for the same sets of acts of the applicant firm. 24. In the result the application is dismissed.
-
1988 (9) TMI 312
Constitutional validity of section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act challenged on the ground it confers arbitrary powers of exemption on the State Government so as to exempt all types of new units from the payment of purchase tax, sales tax and Central sales tax under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1979 - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As this assessment exercise falls purely within the domain of the executive and it is not for the court to see whether other edible units also derive huge benefits and as such Government ought to have revoked the tax exemption benefit in their cases as well. As already stated the classification between units engaged in producing edible oils and non-edible oils is on an intelligible and sustainable basis and as such the court cannot hold that the Government should treat both kinds of units alike and direct the withdrawal of the tax exemption benefit in the case of non-edible oil producing units also.
For all these reasons we hold that section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act is not violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as alleged by the petitioner.
-
1988 (9) TMI 311
The Notification No. A-3-22-86-(83)-ST-V dated December 11, 1986 is to be quashed. All concerned parties will pay tax at the uniform higher rate.
-
1988 (9) TMI 310
The Notification G.O. Ms. No. 721, Revenue (S), dated July 1, 1985 is to be quashed. All concerned parties will pay tax at the uniform higher rate.
........
|
