|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 318 Records
-
1990 (7) TMI 360 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ks and thereafter manufactured packing cases. In those circumstances, this Court held that a packing case in any sense of the term, cannot be called timber. For, it not only became a different commercial product, but its uses were also different. It was held further in that case, once timber was used in the manufacture of packing cases, the identity of the timber as such was lost as it stood converted by the process of manufacture into packing cases . But, on the facts, in our case, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and other two Division Bench judgments of this Court, we have no doubt that the Tribunal was right in holding that the purchase turnover of timber is not exigible to tax under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act. 10.. In the result, the tax (revision) cases are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11.. We place on record our appreciation for the ready help rendered by Mr. Inbarajan, advocate, acting as amicus curiae. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and without regard to the admitted and proved facts in this case and by failing to draw the necessary presumption flowing from the various lapses committed by the assessee. The order of the Appellate Tribunal, read as a whole, is unsatisfactory and perfunctory and has ignored vital aspects, which we have adverted to above. Counsel for the assessee was not able to satisfy us that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the above vital aspects. 4.. We are satisfied that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated September 8, 1989, is not in accordance with law. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 520/1989 dated September 8, 1989 and we direct the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to its file and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, and after adverting to the various records and other proceedings which are available in the files, which we have adverted to above. 5.. The tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 358 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 73-74 is quashed and the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, as confirmed by the appellate and the first revisional authority are restored. 14.. Parties will bear their own costs. Learned advocate for the first respondent submitted at last that if the order of the Tribunal below is quashed, the matter may be remitted back to the Commercial Tax Officer so that he can decide afresh, with reference to declaration forms obtained by the assessee. Learned State Representative opposed this prayer. After quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal below, there is no scope for sending the matter back to the Commercial Tax Officer for reconsideration of the claim for deduction. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner in revision stands restored. Even otherwise, there is no just reason to remit the matter to the Commercial Tax Officer. We have, therefore, made the above order. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 357 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ing dealers, but there was no material to controvert the same. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that the declarations were untrue or incorrect so as to disentitle the assessee from claiming the exemption. The only point urged on behalf of the department being that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion without any materials before it and that this was a point of law, cannot therefore be supported. In that view of the matter, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law really arises for opinion by the court. The questions referred do not arise for consideration and are not required to be answered in the form in which they have been made. In fact, there being no question of law involved in this case, there was no point in making a reference whatsoever. The reference is thus disposed of. 12.. There will be no order for costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (7) TMI 356 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with penalty in accordance with the provisions of section 38(3) of the Act, as understood by the assessee, was admittedly filed by the assessee along with its memo of appeal, the view we are taking in this case does not appear illogical or unreasonable. 6.. For the foregoing reasons, the reformulated question of law is answered as follows In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner could not be rejected on account of non-payment of 50 per cent of the total demand of tax and penalty at the time of filing the appeal and that the appeal required to be heard on merits at the further amount of Rs. 83,500 was paid by the assessee after service of the show cause notice dated August 27, 1979 to make up the deficiency towards 50 per cent of the extra tax demand. 7.. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their costs as incurred. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (7) TMI 355 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iry of ninety days. However, there does not appear to be any justification to allow retention of the documents seized from the custody of the petitioner by the respondents beyond the period of ninety days as contemplated by the proviso to subsection (3) of section 41 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would not insist for the release of documents, item 11(b) under mahazar and XX book under D7 slip, with respect to which the petitioner shall abide by the direction given by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Since I find that the respondents have no reason whatever to retain the other seized documents from the custody of the petitioner beyond a period of ninety days at a time as contemplated under the aforementioned provision of law, I hereby direct the respondents to release all seized documents except the aforementioned two documents to the petitioner forthwith. Let a direction accordingly issue. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 354 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ale after such processing, whether or not the commodities retain their original identity in their powdered form. Accordingly, the taxing authorities were right in initiating proceedings under section 9(3) of the 1954 Act by issuing the impugned notices. The applicants made a prayer in the writ application for a declaration that section 5 of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1980, is ultra vires article 304 of the Constitution of India. But the question was not raised and this point was not at all pressed at the hearing. 20.. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. The amount of security which might have been deposited or furnished in terms of interim orders made by the High Court will be adjusted against assessed dues of the disputed period, when assessments are made. Interim orders, if still subsisting, are vacated. No order is made as to costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 353 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Government appears to be correct. 7.. Counsel rightly relied on exhibits P1 and P2, communications emanating from the Board of Revenue (exhibit P1) and from the Government (exhibit P2) which, according to him, support his contentions. We are not called upon to express our view on them. This Court has to interpret on its own, the relevant entries in accordance with well-settled principles of law. 8.. On a plain interpretation of the statutory scheme and the Schedule, we hold that entry 138 will take in the trailers. The view expressed in exhibit P4 does not call for any interference, even if the competence of the Government under section 59-A is in doubt . In that view of the matter, we dismiss the original petition, but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. Section 59-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, has since been struck down by the High Court in Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1991 81 STC 313 (Ker).-Ed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 352 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is the settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are restrained from realising any tax from the petitioner on the laminated HDPE fabrics under the Notification No. ST-11-3714/X-6(1)-85 U.P. Act15-48-Order-85, dated June, 5, 1985. If any assessments have been made against the petitioner, treating the laminated HDPE fabrics manufactured by the petitioner as liable to tax, the same shall stand quashed and the tax, if realised from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him within 3 months of the date on which a certified copy of this judgment and order is filed before the appropriate authority. As the petition has been disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ehicle kept in readiness to replace loss, breakage, etc. May be, in our view the articles in question are not indispensable one for running of the automobile, but it cannot be gainsaid that they are essential, with the exception of hub caps, for effective and convenient running of the motor vehicle. If so viewed, and coupled with the decision of the Allahabad High Court, we are inclined to agree with the realistic view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rather than the unrealistic view taken by the Board of Revenue. In fact, in 1973 32 STC 346 (Mad.) (Khetty Traders v. State of Madras) there is this observation, namely, that once the canvass cloth has been converted into seat covers, it becomes an auto-part or accessory (emphasis supplied). If that be so, it will not be a far-fetched view to treat the articles in question as automobile spare parts. 12.. In the result, we set aside the order of the Board of Revenue, and allow the appeals. No costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 350 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee was liable to pay tax on the purchase of groundnut. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents alone are responsible for the mistake. The mistake is on the part of the Revenue also. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Sasman and Company reported in 1984 57 STC 160, this Court has observed that when the assessing authority himself was of the view that the turnover relating to cloth bags is taxable at 4 per cent, the assessee cannot be said to have intentionally violated the provisions of the Act. On the special circumstances of this case, we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the penalty provisions will not stand attracted in this case . We are of the view that the above ratio will squarely apply to the facts of this case, and the Tribunal having applied the ratio of the said decision, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 4.. In the result, the tax case fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 349 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r setting aside the assessment order. We, however, find that the Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind to determine the real question in dispute. Where the appellant who is to produce materials does not produce them, there should be no finding in his favour and the Tribunal is to complete the assessment on the materials available instead of remitting the matter back. The same would amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal. 7.. In view of the aforesaid discussion second appellate order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained by answering the question of law by stating that the Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 8.. On receipt of this answer, the Tribunal is to pass an order under section 24(5) of the Act. This order would be to rehear the second appeal afresh and finally decide the same determining the liability of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree.
-
1990 (7) TMI 348 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n serial No. 89 in the notification under section 5 of the Act which came into effect from April 1, 1982. It reads 89. Salt when sold in sealed packets and containers. 4 per cent. 4.. The only contention of learned counsel for the dealer is that the word sealed governs both packets and containers. Since gunny bags and nylon bags containing salt are not sealed, salt is not taxable. There is no force in this contention. Serial No. 29 of exempted goods and serial No. 89 of taxable goods when read together clearly indicate that use of the word sealed in both serials has the same effect. All goods if not exempted under section 6 are taxable. Only salt except in sealed packets and containers is not taxable. Salt in container is thus taxable. Word sealed does not govern the word container . 5.. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to state a case. Application is accordingly dismissed. No costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der to promote such industries the State of Kerala advanced loan on a hire-purchase agreement for purchase of machinery without an intention of appropriating the machine to itself and selling it. The price of machine was Rs. 1,42,982 out of which the State Government advanced the finance of Rs. 1,00,000. M/s. Modern Plastic Industries purchased the machinery directly from the manufacturer who prepared the invoice in the name of the said industries. Under the agreement the State Government could take into possession the machinery in case there was a default on the part of the industries. There can be no manner of doubt that to that case the ratio of Sundaram Finance Ltd. 1966 17 STC 489 (SC), would apply. We are unable to see how the basic facts and the terms of the hire-purchase agreement in that case and the cases at hands are in any way similar. 10.. Under the circumstances, the question is answered in the negative. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1990 (7) TMI 346 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... scope in the scheme for taking any plant and machinery on lease to establish industry. If a unit decides to take plant and machinery on lease, it has to necessarily give up any claim for tax holiday. 12.. One question, however, remains unanswered. Is the unit really a new industrial unit? Is it not, in fact, an expansion of an existing industrial unit, which has been taken on lease by the applicant? Since the question has not been specifically raised in this form, we have not considered this aspect of the case. 13.. In view of the reasons given above, we hold that the Additional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the applications for eligibility certificates. Since the applicant is not entitled to tax exemption, the Commercial Tax -Officer was competent to assess tax and issue demand notice. 14.. In the result, the application is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 345 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he respondents to the purchasers, therefore the respondents were not entitled to get the refund. The facts of the case at hand are plain and simple. Even while penalty imposed by the respondents that the petitioner s collection was in accordance with the Schedule and whether such a penalty can be maintained, that is a short question involved in this petition. 19.. What is to be seen is whether the petitioner made collection of tax in a manner except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder? In face of the admission made by the respondents, as noted above, there is absolutely no justification for imposition of the penalty, as done by the respondents. 20.. For the foregoing reasons this petition deserves to be allowed it is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 (one thousand) if certified. Order annexures 3, 4 and 5 are quashed. The amount of penalty as imposed is set aside and be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tate trade or commerce if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another . Law on the point is well-settled and, therefore, it is unnecessary to refer to them. Merely because the goods are intended for being transported outside the State or were in fact so transported, the transaction does not become inter-State sale. For the transaction to become inter-State sale, movement of goods must be occasioned by the terms of the contract or the incident of sale. Passing of the title in the property is not the decisive factor. 11.. Clear finding has been reached in this case that the goods were meant for consumption in Orissa State and their movement from one State to another had been occasioned as a direct result of the permit under which only the sale took place and accordingly the goods were actually transported outside the State. 12.. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (7) TMI 343 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... because no State has the right to receive or to retain taxes or monies realised from citizens without the authority of law. (Emphasis supplied) Under such circumstances it can, going by the above observations of the Supreme Court, be said that the retention of the amount is without the authority of law and, therefore, the party who had paid the tax is entitled to get a refund. Here the position is just the opposite. The amount paid as tax, the authorities are entitled to collect in advance on the basis of provisional assessment. Retention of such amounts, until the final assessment is over, cannot be said to be retention without the authority of law. Not only that, the refund is claimed under section 44. That being the position the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount in dispute has been retained without the authority of law is liable to be rejected. The original petition, for the reasons stated above, is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 342 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cessories thereof, which means spare parts of motor vehicles, motor vessels, motor engines, etc. The words accessories thereof in entry 138 of the First Schedule have reference to motor vehicles, motor engines, etc., and not the spare parts , immediately preceding the words occurring in the entry. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that rubber flaps manufactured and sold by the revision-petitioner are accessories of spare parts of motor vehicles, coming under entry 138 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. The construction of the relevant entries by the Appellate Tribunal is a palpable error. 5.. We are satisfied that the rubber flaps manufactured and sold by the revision-petitioner will come only under entry 39 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 556 and 557 of 1988 dated October 11, 1988 and restore the order of the assessing authority. The above tax revision cases are allowed. Petitions allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 341 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ipoornan, J.) in O.P. No. 3689 of 1983-A. But at that time, as a representation was pending with the Government, His Lordship was pleased to direct that the Government would consider all aspects and render a decision in accordance with section 59-A. The judgment in O.P. No. 3689 of 1983-A dated 29th June, 1984 has been perused by us and we are not quoting from that judgment, because no judicial pronouncement has been given by the Court. 26.. In the result, the revision is allowed, and the original order of assessment dated 28th January, 1984 is restored. As regards S.T.A. No. 204 of 1988 filed against the revised assessment order dated 22nd January, 1988, we direct the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter, bearing in mind the observations in-this judgment. 27.. In the result the revision is allowed, and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The original assessment order dated 28th January, 1984, is restored as it is correct and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
........
|
