|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 227 Records
-
1991 (10) TMI 287 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the return of bottles by L1 licensee to the dealer to obtain the refund. It was further conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the dealer in this Court that on every consignment to the L1 licensee a fresh deposit of security was taken for the bottles supplied. It is admitted position in this case that not a single bottle was in fact returned by the L1 licensee to the dealer. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Arlem Breweries case 1983 53 STC 172 which in a way stands approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel s case 1989 74 STC 379. Accordingly we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the dealer and hold that the course of dealings between the parties show that the amount of money claimed by the dealer as having been received as security was in fact part of the sale price and that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax on the same. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (10) TMI 286 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tter. As regards the preliminary objection that the writ petition is premature, I have already quoted above the authorities relied by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein several High Court have held that if the notice is without jurisdiction or the action which is likely to be taken is null and void, proceedings can be quashed even at the stage of show cause notice. In view of my opinion I have expressed above, no useful purpose would be served by referring the matter back to the assessing authority for doing the same thing which can be done by the High Court. I need not discuss and refer to all the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except that reference may be made to Chatur Bhuj Pokar Ram 1984 56 STC 75 (Raj) and Ashwin Industries case 1982 50 STC 322 (Guj). In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, the notice dated July 29, 1988 (annexure 1) issued to the petitioner is quashed. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 285 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... certain entries in the books of accounts, tally with part of the goods in the slips of paper and thus were trying to escape the best of judgment assessment. We agree with the Joint Commissioner that the story pleaded by the assessees more than one year after the inspection cannot be believed in preference to the statement given immediately after the inspection. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had fallen into an error in accepting the story pleaded in the affidavits and deleting the turnover of Rs. 18,520. There was no indication in the slips of paper as to how the names Mahendiran and Gouri vilas could be translated or decoded by the assessees as Sankaralingam and Surulisamy at the time of writing the accounts. Once the suppression is established we do not find any cause for deleting the penalty on the suppressed turnover. Consequently the order of the Joint Commissioner is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 284 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... endorsement of the bill of lading in favour of STC. The STC is the Indian buyer and exporter. The transaction of Indexport does not pass the test of export sale. As such, the second limb of section 5(1) of the CST Act does not apply. Reference may be made, in this connection, to the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Coffee Board v. State of Karnataka 1990 76 STC 337. 17.. All the contentions of Dr. Pal thus fail. Considering the materials on record we are of the opinion that the applicants are not entitled to get exemption from tax on account of the sales to the STC on the basis of section 5(1) of the CST Act. The applicants cannot claim exemption from tax, as prayed for. 18.. The application under article 226 of the Constitution, registered in this Tribunal as RN-289(T) of 1990 is, accordingly, dismissed. No order is made as to costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 283 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n force during the said period. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for us to consider the other contentions. These writ petitions are filed, as noted above, against the orders of provisional assessment. We accordingly allow the writ petitions and quash the orders impugned therein. If any amounts are paid by the petitioners pursuant to the interim direction of the court towards the demand made pursuant to the impugned order, they may be adjusted against the sales tax payable by the petitioners either for the past period or for the subsequent period. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. In so far as Writ Petition No. 13733 of 1988 is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the validity of four orders-two orders passed under the State Act and two orders passed under the Central Act. As one writ petition would not have been maintainable in respect of four orders, we direct the petitioner to pay excess court-fee within two weeks from today. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the competent authority had demanded an amount which is beyond the maximum prescribed by the Act and on account of ignorance or for any other reasons the dealer concerned had agreed to pay and/or paid the said amount to avoid prosecution. In such a case the dealer concerned would have the right to contend that the amount demanded was not authorised by law and therefore just because the dealer had accepted to pay the amount and have the offence compounded, he cannot be precluded from challenging the action of the authorities on the ground that the collection of compounding fee beyond the maximum prescribed under the Act was illegal. That is exactly the position in this case, in that the maximum amount that could have been collected as compounding fee was Rs. 1,000 and as double that amount has been collected, the respondent had the right to challenge the legality of the levy. 7.. In the result, we make the following order The writ appeal is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 281 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder the provisions of rule 52(2) of the TNGST Rules are concerned. To this extent, we have already noticed that the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Sales Tax Act and Rules are in pari materia. We therefore reject the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the appeals filed by him to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the orders of assessment were not barred by limitation. Therefore, service on one of the quondam partners should be deemed to be service on all the quondam partners. The period of limitation runs from the date of service on any one of the quondam partners of a dissolved firm. We have already noticed that for both the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, one of the quondam partners had been served long before and reckoned from that date, the appeals were hopelessly barred by limitation. The tax revision cases therefore fail and they are accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 280 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also. Thus setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner we restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77. Thus in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 79 and 81 of 1983 the appellants succeed to the extent indicated above. The assessing authority shall consider the matter in the light of the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the erratum order dated 9th July, 1980 and in the light of the observations made by us hereinabove. 8.. So far as the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 is concerned, the order of the assessing authority, which stood confirmed up to the Tribunal is not interfered with, and the order of the Joint Commissioner in respect of that assessment year is upheld. Hence Tax Case (Appeal) No. 80 of 1983 is dismissed. 9.. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs in these appeals. T.C. No. 80 of 1983 dismissed. T.C. Nos. 79 and 81 of 1983 partly allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 279 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat purpose. There may be honest and dishonest dealers. To deal with dishonest dealers for the purpose of avoiding evasion of tax, stringent measures may be necessary. If all these provisions are struck down, the economy of the State will be in jeopardy and the situation will be a blessing to dishonest dealers. 21.. The only provision that is liable to be struck down is the authorisation given in section 29A(2B) to detain the goods and deal with them in the manner provided for as if the transport of goods was an attempt to evade payment of tax in cases where the officer has reason to believe that the dealer has at any time defaulted tax for any period. I strike down that portion of section 29A(2B) alone and direct State of Kerala and Board of Revenue to take appropriate steps and issue necessary directions to see that the provisions are not misused resulting in harassment. In other respects, all the original petitions are dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions partly dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 278 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case the Revenue realised such tax from them, from the Corporation. This, however cannot mean that the Board of Revenue has committed any error in holding as above and deciding the exigibility of the goods sold by the appellants and the liability of the appellants to pay the tax upon such turnover. 12.. Having found as above, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal. But we have a feeling that the Revenue should have been careful in picking up the principal instead of the commission agent in the instant case for the realisation of the tax. Since upon our judgment the matter shall again be in the hands of the Revenue, we observe that it would find out whether the Corporation has realised the tax from the buyers and if it has realised the tax from the buyers and the appellants do not hold the money, it would realise the tax from the Corporation (principal) instead of the appellants. 13.. With the observation as above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 277 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the condition that the petitioner shall not be made liable for any interest on account of delayed payment, but such an offer was neither accepted nor turned down. In such a situation if the tax could not be realised, the department itself has to be blamed. Liability to pay interest under section 8(1) accrues only when the default in payment of admitted tax is attributable to the assessee alone, which is not the situation, as it obtained in the instant case. For what has been stated above, we are unable to sustain the demand in respect of the interest made from the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is liable to succeed. The petition is accordingly, allowed. The notice demanding the interest and the recovery certificate contained in annexures 10 and 11, respectively are hereby quashed and the respondents are restrained from demanding or realising the amount of Rs. 6,424.32 or any part thereof from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he above decision of the Division Bench is fully applicable to the facts of this case. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, fell in complete error, after recording the finding that the representation made by the assessee was false, to accept the plea of the assessees of acting bona fide and thereupon deleting the penalty. In the established facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority had rightly found that the representation made by the assessees, at the time of issuing C forms for purchasing the oil engine spares was a false representation, and the plea of acting bona fide was therefore unsustainable. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. We accordingly, accept the revision filed by the Revenue and set aside the order made by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of all the five revisions. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ey are clearly distinguishable. The ruling of this Bench in the case of CCE v. Natraj Paints (P) Ltd. in Order Nos. 60-61/90-C, dated 30-1-1990 are fully applicable to the facts of this case. Applying the ratio of this case, the Revenue appeals are dismissed. 10. emsp As regards the assessee rsquo s appeal regarding the dismissal of two refund claims of Rs. 24035.86 and 3003.07, they have asserted that the duty had been paid under protest and that the claim is not time barred. They have not placed any evidence on this nor argued on this issue except to say that they are supplemental claims. Therefore, this appeal of assessee is allowed by remand to original authorities for de novo consideration to consider their claim regarding this two refunds applications afresh by giving them an opportunity of being heard. 11. emsp In the result, the Revenue appeals were dismissed and the assessee appeal in E-4455/89-C is allowed by remand to original authorities for de novo consideration.
-
1991 (10) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of provisional assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as amended in 1982 challenged
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. High Court was correct to upheld the validity of Act as relying on judgment reported in Asoka Oil Mills v. Sales Tax Officer [1984 (4) TMI 268 - KERALA HIGH COURT]
-
1991 (10) TMI 271 - SC ORDER
Whether the tax payable by the respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could not exceed one per cent in view of the Notification S.R.O. No. 117 of 1966 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the notification are absolutely clear and fully support the view taken by the High Court
-
1991 (10) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT
Quantum of the estimate on best judgment challenged
Held that:- The apprehension of the petitioner that the High Court left little choice to the Tribunal in the matter of the estimate of the gross and taxable turnovers could be allayed by directing the Tribunal that, in disposing of the matter upon remand, it shall while taking due note of the observation of the High Court in regard to the effect of the non-production before the Tribunal of the books of account which the petitioner had obtained back from the authorities during the proceedings, the Tribunal may however, not be hampered by any other observation which might limit its choice of the basis of assessment and shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law on settled principles guiding assessments as best judgment. With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.
-
1991 (10) TMI 252 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... e taken to advertise the petition pursuant to the orders of this court. Even so, there being no response from the second respondent, this court passed an order directing the winding up of the company. Now, the second respondent-company has come forward with this application seeking recall of the order of winding up dated July 4, 1991. No other creditor has appeared before this court seeking an order of winding up or in support of the creditor who had sought winding up of the second respondent-company. In the circumstances, when the company is in a position to pay off the debts by it and no other creditor having come up in support of the winding up, it is appropriate that the order dated July 4, 1991, made in Company Petition No. 78 of 1989 is recalled. Ordered accordingly. Learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the petitioner in Company Petition No. 78 of 1989, seeks leave of the court to withdraw the company petition. The company petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
1991 (10) TMI 251 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Powers of liquidator , Power to apply to court to have questions determined or powers exercised
-
1991 (10) TMI 250 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Application of insolvency rules in winding up of insolvent companies ... ... ... ... ..... w among the creditors after meeting the other necessary obligations. The position of a secured creditor has been fully discussed by the Supreme Court in M. K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras 1955 25 Comp Cas 344 AIR 1955 SC 604. The secured creditor can choose to recover the amount by selling the property mortgaged or goods hypothecated and remain outside the winding up proceedings. In case such a creditor wants to recover the decretal amount by taking the assistance of the court by filing an execution and attaching other properties of the company, he would cease to be a secured creditor and would rank with other creditors of the company. In view of what has been stated above, the directions of the single judge in the impugned order for disposal of the objections to the execution on the merits by the executing court are appropriate. This appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear in the executing court on November 25, 1991.
-
1991 (10) TMI 249 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... ng is intended primarily to set right the course of justice, in so far as we may. In this case the respondents had never expressed any willingness to purchase the shares of the petitioners. There is also no act of inequity in this case as the illegal meeting in Needle s case 1981 51 Comp Cas 743 (SC) of which justice demands rectification. I do not read Needle s case 1981 51 Comp Cas 743 (SC) as an authority for the proposition that even in cases where oppression and mismanagement are not found under section 397 or 398 of the Act, the court can compel the company or the respondents to buy out the dissident shareholders. For all these reasons this application is dismissed with costs and all interim orders are vacated. Stay of operation of this judgment and order is prayed for and the same is allowed till November 25, 1991. Let a xerox copy of this judgment be given to the parties upon the undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and payment of usual charges.
........
|
