|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 227 Records
-
1991 (10) TMI 307 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er, will be responsible for discharging the onus of proving that the goods had moved outside the State. In this view of the matter also I find that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in approaching the case from a wrong angle regarding the burden of proof. Learned counsel for the assessees also does not dispute this proposition of law. That apart, the finding recorded by the first appellate authority that the assessees had got prepared a forged record relating to Bilties regarding the aforesaid transport in these cases has also not been considered and adequately dealt by the Sales Tax Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing discussions, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 14. With the aforesaid observations all the aforesaid 99 revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow succeed and are allowed with one set of costs which are assessed at ₹ 300.
-
1991 (10) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut the shifting stand of the Union of India. It entered into a Court assisted settlement but when the review applications came up for hearing it supported the review petitioners without seeking the Court's leave to withdraw from the settlement on permissible grounds or itself filing a review petition. To say the least this conduct is indeed surprising. I would have liked to reason out my view in greater detail but the constraint of time does not permit me to do so. The draft of the main judgment was finalised only yes- terday by noon time and since the matter was already listed for judgment today, I had only a few hours to state my views. I had, therefore, no time to write a detailed judg- ment but just a little time to indicate in brief the crux of some of the reasons for my inability to agree with the view expressed in the judgment of Brother Venkatachaliah, J. on the question of Union of India's liability to make good the deficiency, if any. Petitions disposed of.
-
1991 (10) TMI 305 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the intestate shall not devolve upon the heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified thereunder but upon heirs of the husband. The, object seems to be not to eliminate the other heirs under sub- section (1) and not to exclude them from inheritance altogether. There is no justice in such a construction of Section 15. The Parliament could not have intended that result. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the Civil Appeal No. 851 of 1991 preferred by the State but not for the reasons stated by the High Court. We allow the appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13923 of 1985 and set aside that portion of the decree made by the High Court as against the defendants 2 to 6. The suit filed by the plaintiff as against defendants 2 to 6 stands dismissed. The parties may adjudicate elsewhere the subsistence or otherwise of the mortgage in question. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. CA No. 851/91 dismissed and CA No. 4125/91 allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sing out of Special Leave Petition No. 814 of 1990) the appellant is Haryana Distillery who purchases molasses which is a by-product of the .manufacture of sugar and manufactures alcohol. Manufacture of alchohol was held by the High Court to come within Entry 15 of Schedule I as processing agricultural prOduct industry. We have held already that the industry manufacturing sugar itself is not an industry within the meaning of Entry 15 and a fortiori the manufacture of alcohol from molasses could not be considered to be an industry within Entry 15 of Schedule I. In the result we allow Civil Appeals (arising out of SLP Nos. 15828 of 1989, 7496 of 1989, 778, 814, 830, 1286, 1433 of 1990 and SLP No .............. of 1991 entitled Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition No. 77 of 1990, and Transfer CaSe (C) Nos. 6 of 1986 & 91 of 1989 and dismiss Civil Appeals (arising out of SLP Nos. 9558-62 of 1988) and the Rule Nisi is made absolute.
-
1991 (10) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and if so was there any material to show that there were compelling reasons to order detention inspire of his being in custody?
Held that:- Sections 111 and 113 of the Customs Act provide for confiscation of improperly imported goods and exported goods respectively. The submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner being in custody in India can no more indulge in smuggling and therefore the detention on the ground that he is likely to indulge in smuggling is non-existent. We see no force in this submission. The potentialities of the detenu as gathered from his act of smuggling that form basis for detention. It is difficult to comprehend precisely the manner in which such a detenu with such potentialities may likely to indulge in the activities of smuggling. It is for the detaining authority to derive the necessary satisfaction on the basis of the materials placed before him. In the result this Writ Petition is also dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rity says that both the return as well as the books of accounts were incorrect and incomplete. There is a specific reference to the fact that the assessment was to the best of its judgment under section 12(2) of the Act. Towards the end of the order he says that the return was found to be incorrect and incomplete as per section 12(4)(iii) of the Act and penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act was called for. Since a finding on this crucial aspect is necessary to find out whether penalty can be levied under section 12(3) or 12(5) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the case back to the assessing authority to render a finding on this aspect as to whether the assessment is based on the books of accounts or de hors the books of accounts. The revision is accepted and the matter remitted back with the assessing authority to render a finding in that light of the observations made in the above order and pass fresh orders the question of levying penalty. 10. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 301 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncern the petitioner is obliged to pay arrears either under section 16 or under section 18 of the Act. Added to that, the petitioner has given an undertaking to the Commercial Tax Officer that in case Sri Om Prakash did not pay the amount due as arrears from M/s. Kamal Oil Mill, it may be recovered from him, that is, from M/s. Ambica Oil Mill. This conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from any discretionary relief from this Court even assuming that all the legal submissions advanced by the petitioner are correct. In that view, we are not persuaded to hold in favour of the petitioner. The attempt to recover the arrears of tax due from M/s. Kamal Oil Mill from the petitioner, either as partner thereof or as transferee thereof in conducting the same business in the same premises under the same lease, cannot be considered as illegal or unsustainable. We therefore, dismiss the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 350. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cular. If the Commissioner has changed his mind as is contended by the learned Standing Counsel, one would have expected him to withdraw the said circular. He did not. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal which applied and followed the said circular and gave its benefit to the assessee herein. Sitting in revision, I cannot say that the Tribunal-or for that matter the first appellate authority-was not justified in following the said circular. For this reason, it is not necessary for me to go into the precise question regarding the meaning of the word accessory nor to go into the question whether, as a matter of law or fact, the trailer concerned herein are accessories of jeeps. Suffice it to say that in view of the circular aforesaid issued by the Commissioner which has been followed by both the appellate authorities, I am not inclined to interfere in these revisions. They accordingly fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 299 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he opinion of the Joint Commissioner that since the dealers had themselves admitted their liability to pay tax on such insurance charges, which they had included in the sale price and on which sales tax had been collected, it would imply that even in respect of those bills where freight charges and insurance charges were shown separately and not included in the composite sale price, the assessees would not be entitled to exemption, is not at all sustainable for, by no stretch of imagination can such charges be construed to form a part of the sale price of the goods. In the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Joint Commissioner of including the insurance charges amounting to Rs. 1,49,295.02 in the taxable turnover was clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner and restore that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 298 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the respondent-assessee, contended that the said observations uphold his contention. I am unable to agree. All that the learned Judge said was that the said contention appears to have some force but then he sent the matter back precisely to find out whether Notification No. 3867 did or did not supersede Notification No. 4748. Indeed, if the learned Judge had accepted the petitioner s contention, as contended by Sri Mathur, then there was no occasion to send the matter back to the Tribunal to verify the said aspect. When I asked the learned counsel as to what decision did the Tribunal take in pursuance of the said order of remand, I am told that the Tribunal has not so far decided the matter. If indeed it is so, it is but proper that the Tribunal decides the matter at an early date. For the above reasons, both the revisions are allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is restored. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 297 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aintained by the assessee may afford. 6.. In the instant case, the suppression detected covered a period of four months. Therefore, the estimate does not appear to be unreasonable and merely because the enhancement was made with reference to the statement of the assessee it cannot be said that there was no material to justify enhancement. The Tribunal has indicated the period of suppression, and magnitude of purchase suppression to justify the enhancement. These are essentially conclusions on facts. The answer to the first limb of second question is that there can be best judgment assessment and enhancement while making assessment under section 12(8) of the Act. So far as the second limb is concerned, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the enhancement of Rs. 2,50,000 on the facts as enumerated above. The reframed second question is answered accordingly. 7.. The questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1991 (10) TMI 296 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the peculiar facts of the present case, the right of appeal should not be denied to the petitioner for non-deposit of the entire amount being claimed. As per the allegations, the petitioners stopped their business in the year 1979 and six years thereafter the matter was taken up by the Assessing Authority. As already stated above, the assessing authority held the assessment to be barred by time and in the meantime substantial amount had been recovered from the petitioner. We direct that the appeal of the petitioner which is pending before the appellate court against the order passed under section 48 of the Act be now disposed of without insisting the payment of the remaining amount, as substantial amount had already been recovered from the petitioner. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the appellate authority on October 28, 1991. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (10) TMI 295 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t file a petition for enhancement. Since, it ignores the provisions of the statute as noticed above, as also the Division Bench judgments of this Court (supra), the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 243 of 1984 (Gulab Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu) cannot be said to lay down the correct law. 4.. Thus, for what we have stated above, we find that the application for enhancement filed by the Revenue by its authorised representative before the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal filed by the assessee is competent and the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass orders on that application after putting the assessee on notice. After the introduction of section 36(3-A) in the statute book, such an application has to conform to the period of limitation prescribed thereunder. In view of the above discussion, the revision fails and is dismissed, as the only question raised has been answered against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 294 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... including the Tribunal. It was found that the plea of bona fide set out by the assessees was not merited. The very fact that later on these very items, i.e., polythene bags, chloric acids and chemicals got included in the certificate of registration would go to show that the assessees knew that their certificate of registration did not authorise them the purchase of those articles by use of C form declarations at the relevant time. Since the assessees had misused form C , they had rendered themselves liable under section 10(b) of the Act, and consequently, the levy of penalty under section 10-A of the Act was justified. The Tribunal has already reduced the quantum of penalty and we see no reason to show any further indulgence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any cause to interfere with the orders of the statutory authorities in exercise of our revisional powers. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 293 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... when the goods are handed over to the carrier and that it shall be at the risk and responsibility of the purchaser thereafter, the stipulation made the carrier an agent of the purchaser for taking delivery of the goods and the handling charges in such cases which were incurred after the delivery to the carrier, would only be post-sale expenses and the Tribunal rightly found that the same could not be included in the sale price and had to be excluded from the taxable turnover. In taking the view, the Tribunal relied upon Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1979 43 STC 13 which undoubtedly supports the case of the assessees. In the fact-situation noticed above, and the terms of the contract between the purchaser and the assessees, we find that the Tribunal committed no error in excluding from the taxable turnover the handling charges. The tax (revision) case has no merit. It fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 292 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plastic goods would give rise to an inference that there was no resale of the plastic goods and the Joint Commissioner rightly found that the plastic goods were given away free. The assessees failed to adduce any reasonable excuse for use of the goods for purposes other than for resale either before the Joint Commissioner or even before us. Since the condition that the goods must be used for the specific purpose permitted in the registration certificate was violated by the assessees and no reasonable excuse or explanation was furnished for the same, the Joint Commissioner was fully justified in holding that the assessees had violated section 10(d) of the Act and were liable to suffer penal consequences envisaged under section 10A of the Act. The order of the Joint Commissioner under the circumstances, does not require any interference at our hands. Consequently we find no merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the promotion has to be by the method of selection or simplicitor promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit?
Whether the General Rules do not supersede the Special Rules?
Held that:- there is no patent inconsistency between the General and Special Rules but on the other hand they co-exist. Therefore, there is no scope whatsoever to infer the repeal by implication as contended by the learned counsel Shri. Chidambaram.
In the result the appeal is allowed and the Government is directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Transport on the basis of promotion by selection, as provided in the Special Rules namely Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1976
-
1991 (10) TMI 290 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... idence produced before it and the evidence in the form of purchase bills produced before it declared the goods as inferior cotton and not as a cotton waste. This finding was recorded by the Joint Commissioner on the basis of the material on record and since the assessees had failed to prove that the purchases effected by them were at any point of time cotton waste, their pleas were rightly rejected by the Joint Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Joint Commissioner is based on material on record and the evidence available on record in the form of purchase bills of the assessees themselves. The order of the Joint Commissioner, therefore, does not suffer from any error and the proposal to bring to assessment the turnover of Rs. 11,52,542.58 to tax as last purchase of cotton was rightly confirmed by the Joint Commissioner. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal. It fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 289 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t whether the application submitted for registration is bona fide or not and whether the particulars mentioned therein are correct or not. If the registering authority is satisfied with the particulars and bona fide nature of the application and has granted the registration certificate, it is not open to a third party to question the validity of the certificate, that too by filing a writ petition. If the third respondent is not the tenant in respect of the premises in question and if the writ petitioners have any objection for the occupation of the premises in question by the third respondent, the proper course open to them is to approach the forum having jurisdiction in the matter and seek appropriate relief regarding eviction or otherwise. So far as the present writ petition is concerned we do not see any grounds to entertain the same having regard to the provisions referred to above. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 288 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it petitions are also dismissed and the authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with law. 19.. Writ Petition No. 2497 of 1985 is against the assessment order dated March 1, 1985 for the year 1982-83 and the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to have recourse to his remedies, if any, under the law. Writ Petition No. 7625 of 1986 is also against a notice dated July 24, 1986 for the year 1983-84 and the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to resort to his remedies, if any, in accordance with law. Writ Petition Nos. 2251, 2252 and 10258 of 1987 seek to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents not to assess the turnover of nylon twine except under item 18 of the Act. The prayer cannot be granted in view of our finding rendered above. Consequently these writ petitions are also dismissed. We direct each of the parties to bear his or their own costs. Assessees appeals and petitions dismissed and State s petitions allowed.
........
|
