|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 220 Records
-
1991 (5) TMI 245 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted dictionaries, and judgments delivered by various courts including the judgments of American and English Courts. This exercise was undertaken primarily to discern how these expressions ornaments and jewellery are understood in common parlance all over, and whether the meaning as commonly understood has been accepted by the judicial courts. In order to determine the controversy of this nature, the real test is the understanding of the meaning by the public at large and the statement of law as declared by courts. Generally, all legislations and governmental notifications are in the ultimate analysis a sum total of public opinion and expression. When the controversy as mentioned above is judged or determined on the basis of aforesaid parameters, the irresistible conclusion is the one which has been arrived at by the Tribunal. We approve and affirm the decision of the Tribunal. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (5) TMI 244 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al discretion vested in him according to law. See R. v. Barnsley 1976 3 All ER 452 (CA), R. v. Secretary 1990 1 All ER 469 (CA) (479 to 481). There has been abdication of the judicial discretion vested in the officer. Besides, the levy of penalty will be irrational or unreasonable and will militate against the Wednesbury principle. The doctrine of proportionality forms part of the rule that the orders should be reasonable or rational. On this short ground, we quash exhibits P9, P10, P11, P15, P16, P17 and P21 in O.P. No. 6316 of 1990. We also quash exhibits P20 and P26 in O.P. No. 7361 of 1990. We direct the concerned Intelligence Officer to reappraise the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law in these two O.Ps. 16.. Subject to the observations contained in this judgment, Writ Appeal No. 108 of 1990 is dismissed. O.P. Nos. 7361 of 1990 and 6316 of 1990 are allowed to the limited extent as stated hereinabove. Writ appeal dismissed. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 243 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... , it becomes exigible to sales tax in the new identity, in keeping with the scheme of single point tax. 25.. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed, but the applicant will be at liberty to prefer appeals before the appropriate appellate authority under the provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder, within fifteen days from this date on only the two grounds mentioned in the foregoing paragraph 23, and on no other ground. If such appeals are preferred within fifteen days from this date, the appellate authority shall treat the appeals to be within time and shall decide them on merits, only on the said two points. Interim orders if any, are vacated. No order for costs. This judgment will govern RN-207(T), 608(T) and 609(T) of 1989. The operation of this judgment be stayed till July 31, 1991, as prayed for by the applicant. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Writ applications dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 242 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that while remanding the case to the first appellate authority the Sales Tax Tribunal ought not to have fixed a rider of a figure of Rs. 35,00,000. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I find that there is force in this contention. The Tribunal has remanded the case to the first appellate authority for verification of the authenticity of originals filed through the Sales Tax Officer and as, in the present case, the exports were of a very large extent, it was not open to the Sales Tax Tribunal to have fixed a rider of the turnover at a figure of Rs. 35,00,000, as has been done by it in the impugned order. The words out of the turnover of Rs. 35,00,000 are hereby accordingly deleted from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Subject to the above observations, the revision has got no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order dated October 13, 1987 is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ollowed by a Full Bench of this Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. V.V. Vanniaperumal and Co. 1990 76 STC 203, which considered at length and distinguished between pre-sale expenses and postsale expenses. 4.. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rai Bharat Das Bros. case 1988 71 STC 277, would squarely be applicable to the case of the assessee with regard to the packing charges in respect of the non-levy cement sales. The packing of the cement was, to effectuate the sales and therefore the packing charges had to be included as an integral part of the sale price. The expression any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods in section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, squarely covers such cases where packing charges are an integral part of the sale price itself. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, rightly decided point No. 3 also, and we see no reason to interfere. The tax revision case fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6 of the notice?
.
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the instant case the certified cheque of the Union Bank of India drawn on is own branch must be treated as sufficient for the purpose of achieving the object of the condition and the Tender Committee took the abundant caution by a further verification from the bank. In this situation it is not correct to hold that the Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6, specially when it was in its interest of not to reject the said bid which was the highest. Therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 filed before the High Court.
-
1991 (5) TMI 239 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e taxation of transfer of property in execution of works contract, has not been made use of. Till it is so done, it is not permissible to read into the definition of sale section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act the ingredients of the Forty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution article 366, clause (29A) . The Tribunal did so. This is a plain legal error. It is only on that basis the Tribunal held that the word sale as contained in the Central Sales Tax Act is wider enough to take in transfer of property in goods involved in works contracts also. This is plainly erroneous. 5.. We hold that the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal is palpably wrong. The authorities below correctly cancelled the amendments effected in the Central sales tax registration certificate which included goods involved in tyre retreading jobs. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 258 of 1989, dated November 7, 1989. The tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta from taking cognizance. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate does not disclose any material to the effect that any act was committed by the petitioner within its jurisdiction and the mere fact of the head office being situated within its jurisdiction does not give jurisdiction to the said court to proceed further with the complaint. The return of the property was not an ingredient of the offence under section 630 of the Act. Jurisdiction about the return of the property vests with the High Court as provided under section 10 of the Act. In these circumstances, the complaint, Gopal Gases Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 38, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi, through its director, Panna Lal Bhatia v. Shri Ramesh G. Bhatia, under section 630 of the Companies Act, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, stands quashed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 237 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Regulation of export and transfer of securities, Restrictions on establishment of place of business in India, Power to adjudicate, Burden of proof
-
1991 (5) TMI 226 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Share capital - Further issue of, Meetings and Proceedings – Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served, Notice for meeting
-
1991 (5) TMI 218 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Penalty for wrongful withholding of property ... ... ... ... ..... hese facts are not controverted by learned counsel for the respondent. It has, however, been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there are additional pleas which have been taken by the respondents regarding which an application has been moved before the trial court and the same pleas have also been raised here by way of additional pleas. These pleas are not being adjudicated upon in this revision petition and the trial court would be taking up the pleas taken up by the parties for adjudication in accordance with law. It is, thus, not disputed that the Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed merely on account of the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties. In, these circumstances, the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated February 12, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, stands set aside. The trial court shall now proceed further in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the trial court on June 21, 1991.
-
1991 (5) TMI 211 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... re issued by the Sales Tax Department on October 4, 1986, although the date of the signatures by the respondent company is mentioned as June 2, 1987. The said ST-15 Forms have also to be seen in the light of the facts and the circumstances noticed above. Further, though the respondent company has pleaded that it never received the goods and also that the price mentioned in the bills is three times the prevalent market price the petitioners have not placed on record any documents to prima facie controvert the said pleas. Though the amount of the bills, dates of the cheques and the dates of the ST-15 Forms in C.P. No. 139 of 1988, are different the primary facts being common, the result in both the petitions has to be same. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, in my view, the respondent company has been able to raise bona fide disputes in regard to the claims made in these petitions. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 202 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent, directors, etc. and Petitions
-
1991 (5) TMI 195 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ot call for any interference. On the question of penalty, vehement plea is made that Shri Suresh C. Vagadia was not in the picture and his first statement itself is exculpatory. A vain attempt was also made stating that Shri Valchand K. Parmar is not a working partner, whereas Shri Suresh Vagadia himself, in his statement states that Shri Valchand Parmar was his partner. The Advocate pleads that the partnership deal has not been finalised. All the same, he does not deny that he was entrusted with the running of the shop during the material period, when the silver bullion was found in that premises. If the silver bullion has been acquired, it is only for the benefit of the firm and hence Shri Suresh C. Vagadia cannot shirk his responsibility, merely because of his absence during the time or search and seizure. Hence, both the appellants deserve to be penalised and considering the quantum of penalty imposed, it does not call for any interference. Both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 194 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import - Disposal goods ... ... ... ... ..... ntending that the goods imported are of different sizes and the value is low no other evidence is adduced by the department to discharge the burden of establishing that the goods imported are disposal goods. There is no evidence that the supplier was intended to get rid of the goods on as is where is basis. It is not the case of the department that there is any prohibition for import of different sizes of shock absorbers. If the goods were found undervalued, the proper course for the department was to level a charge of misdeclaration and also to load the value. No such thing has been done. 16. emsp Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision cited above, I am of the opinion that the Department has failed to establish that the goods imported by the appellants are disposal goods. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct that the appellant be granted the consequential reliefs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Payment of duty under protest ... ... ... ... ..... ot raised before the Apex Court in that case. 4. We have considered the submissions. As aforesaid, in the first instance, there is no dispute that duty was paid under protest. It is also not in dispute that during the relevant time there was no express provision for payment of duty under protest. However, the absence of any express provision regarding the payment of duty under protest cannot take away the right of a person to pay the duty under protest. It is common knowledge that whenever a tax or duty is demanded and the person concerned does not admit such demand, the only course left open to him is either to pay the duty under protest or to face the consequences like coercive proceedings etc. to safeguard his interest and this is what has been done actually by the respondents in the instant case. 5. In view of the above, we affirm the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi and reject the present appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1991 (5) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d and setting aside the order dated 12-3-1985 of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Vadodara classifying it under Item 15A(2) CET as articles of plastic. Heard Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned Departmental Representative and Shri Willingdon Christian, learned Counsel for the respondents. The issue stands settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Geep Flashlight India v. Union of India reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in which Supreme Court held that articles made of plastic means articles made wholly out of plastic and not articles made out of plastic alongwith other materials. The Collector (Appeals) has correctly relied on the ratio of this decision which has also been followed by this Tribunal in another case of Wiltech India v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 38 (Tri.) 1988 (18) E.C.R. 209. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal, is therefore, rejected.
-
1991 (5) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption from duty not effected due to non-filing of declaration from licensing control ... ... ... ... ..... of the said notification. Confiscation of the goods, therefore, in these circumstances is not justified. We, therefore, set aside the confiscation and consequently redemption fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. 5.4 As regards the imposition of compounding fee of Rs. 25,000/-, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the show cause notice given to the appellant did not propose any compounding fee. Therefore, imposition of compounding fee for not taking out a licence is going beyond the purview of the show cause notice. Even on merits, he has submitted that as submitted earlier in the context of redemption fine, no licence was required to be taken inasmuch as the production and clearance of the appellant was far less than Rs. 10 lakhs in a financial year. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the compounding fee is also set aside. 6. In short, appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Cross objections are accordingly dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 184 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ion to effect the seizure. Again, in the case reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 792 (Tri.) 1986 (8) ECR 669, the Tribunal held as follows - ldquo Even if we assume that the goods are of foreign origin, that by itself would not be sufficient to order confiscation in the absence of clear evidence that they were smuggled goods. rdquo This decision was followed by the Tribunal in the decision reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Shri Balkrishan, which was relied on by the learned Consultant for the appellant. 11. Hence, I hold that the confiscation of the sewing machine needles and pant hooks are liable to be set aside and I order accordingly. But the confiscation of the zip fasteners under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962 is hereby confirmed. The penalty imposed on the appellant is also confirmed. The sewing machine needles and the pant hooks may be returned to the appellant. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (5) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... the same is hereby confirmed. 10. This takes me to the last point to be determined as to whether the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on the appellant is in accordance with law. It was contended by the learned Consultant Shri K.P. Dey that the appellant is the sole proprietor of the firm and the firm had already been penalised to the extent of Rs. 2,500/-. In such circumstances, he contended that there was no special reason to penalise the appellant also on the very same offence. In my opinion, the firm belongs to the appellant and he is the sole proprietor of the same. The firm is already penalised to the extent of Rs. 2,500/-. No special reasons are mentioned in the adjudication order as to why the appellant who is the sole proprietor of the firm also should be penalised for the same offence. In such circumstances, I give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- imposed on him. But for this modification, the appeal stands dismissed.
........
|
