|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 214 Records
-
1991 (6) TMI 237 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e conclusion that if refined bentonite powder is chemical, unrefined bentonite powder is also a chemical. 7.. The Tribunal has also referred to dictionary meaning of the term chemical occurring in Webster s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (2nd Edition, 1979). Therein the meaning of the term chemical is given as follows Chemical-any substance used in or obtained by a chemical process or processes. After referring to the aforesaid definition, the Tribunal rightly observed that a commodity need not be a product of a chemical process and also be used to produce a chemical effect in order to be classed as a chemical. Both these qualities are alternative qualities and the possession of either suffices to make the article a chemical . We see no reason to differ from the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. 8.. For the aforesaid reasons the reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 236 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nexure V as a whole, it becomes abundantly clear that the transaction in substance and in reality is the transaction of sale and purchase of the dried chicory roots to be supplied by the growers to the assessee-company. Therefore looking to the abovesaid principle we feel no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties, i.e., the growers and the assessee-company as evidenced in the agreement at annexure V, is in the nature of sale and purchase agreement. In view of this position the contention raised by learned counsel Mr. Pathak for the assessee that the transaction is in the form of a works contract cannot be accepted. Looking to the abovesaid position it becomes clear that both the abovesaid questions referred to us require to be answered and replied in affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We, hereby, do answer the abovesaid questions accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 235 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the case and if we were to come to the conclusion that the sale transactions are not covered by the provisions of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, we would have agreed with the observations of the Tribunal that the second sale has taken place within the State of Maharashtra. 11.. It cannot be accepted as proposition of law that since first sale is inter-State sale covered by the provisions of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, second sale cannot take place unless the goods physically cross the border of one State and enter the border of another State. There is nothing in law which does not permit second sale even before the goods cross the borders of the State concerned. In this view of the matter the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue cannot be accepted. 12.. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the reference accordingly as indicated hereinabove in para 4, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 234 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e scope of section 5(3) of the CST Act, it is unnecessary to discuss these decisions. Further, the decision of the Supreme Court in Murli Manohar and Co. 1991 80 STC 79 is subsequent to these decisions. Our conclusions are Section 5(3) of the CST Act does not affect the identification of the situs of the sale the purpose of section 5(3) is to enumerate a principle that the penultimate sale prior to the actual export of goods, also is a sale in the course of export. Section 6 of the Act, has to be understood in the light of its language read with the definition of sale under the Act. Since the penultimate sale, i.e., the sale by which the assessee transferred the goods to Kalbhavi is a local sale, it cannot be equated to despatching the goods to a place outside the State by the assessee hence the levy under section 6 is not attracted. Consequently this revision petition is allowed and the order of assessment under section 6 of the Act is set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 233 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rly that the abovesaid two products cannot be said to be food-stuffs, which would fall within the entry No. 6 of Schedule III of the Act. In other words the abovesaid articles would fall within the residuary item at entry No. 13 of the same Schedule. We have been told that looking to the present rate of the tax levied on the articles under entry No. 6 and entry No. 13, the Revenue if were to succeed in the present reference, would be the loser. Anyhow, the abovesaid is not a consideration before us while deciding the present reference. Therefore it appears that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the abovesaid two articles as sold by the assessee are covered by the residuary entry No. 13 of Schedule III to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The answer therefore to this reference is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to cost in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 232 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras 1961 12 STC 476 (SC), State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswami Iyer and Sons 1966 18 STC 1 and the subsequent decisions explaining the above decisions-Joint Commercial Tax Officer v. Spencer and Co. 1975 36 STC 188 (SC), Central Wines v. Special Commercial Tax Officer 1987 65 STC 48 (SC), we have no hesitation to hold that the sales tax collected by the assessee will form part of his turnover for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. The decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to the contrary is patently erroneous in law. We reverse the said decision and direct the assessing authority to amend the assessment in the light of the reasoning and conclusion contained herein. 7.. The tax revision case is allowed. We express our appreciation of the services rendered by advocate Mr. K.C. Balagangadharan as amicus curiae and place on record our appreciation of the useful services rendered by counsel. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 231 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was a case in which goods were subjected to tax as per the special rates under the provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Even in such case, the authorities of the Sales Tax Department insisted that the transactions were exigible to tax under the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978. In view of the fact that the goods were liable to tax at the special rate as per the notification issued under the provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Kerala High Court negatived the contention of the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid special facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Kerala High Court that tax leviable under the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978, was not attracted. In our opinion, this decision is not at all relevant for deciding the controversy at issue. 23.. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the reference accordingly as indicated in para 3 hereinabove with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 230 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oil and vaporizing oil. Therein certain details have been given as regards other products. It is not disputed that refined diesel oil and vaporizing oil referred to in tariff item No. 8 are petroleum products. In this entry LAB had been taxed as far as the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is concerned. Thus it is obvious that the people dealing in this commodity called LAB, have been treating the same as a petroleum product. 9.. Unless it is shown that on account of the mixture of two elements which are petroleum products, the product which comes into existence ceased to be a petroleum product, ordinarily it will have to be treated as a petroleum product. Simply because some involved process is required for mixing the two petroleum products and for manufacturing the third one, the ultimate product does not cease to be a petroleum product. 10.. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 229 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the matter. Be it noted that it is a notice as provided in regulation 11. Therefore at this stage, there cannot be a notice of admission. Admission of the matter would be only after the stage of regulation 13 is over. Regulation 13 contemplates placing of the matter before the Tribunal for admission and appropriate order thereon. Thus it is evident that notice in form J to the Commissioner is purely an administrative matter calling for records and proceedings from the office of the Commissioner. It is no notice whatsoever as regards the admission of the appeal or as regards the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, limitation for filing cross-objections cannot start to run from the date of receipt of notice in form J even if one such notice is served upon the Commissioner. 17.. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question referred to us as stated in para 5 of this judgment. This reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 228 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... de certain broad observations in the course of its judgment. On the basis of these observations one may get the impression that the goods which are held to be consumable stores used in the manufacture of taxable goods can never be subject-matter of resale. By making such broad proposition and making general statement, of almost universal applicability, the Tribunal has unnecessarily widened the scope of controversy. By doing so, the Tribunal transposed the arena of controversy from the particular transaction of wooden boxes in question to the general category of all goods which may be used as consumable stores in the manufacture of taxable goods. For deciding the question at issue it was not necessary to make such broad proposition of facts or law. 14.. In above view of the matter we answer the question as indicated against the question in para 9 hereinabove. The reference is answered accordingly, with no order as to costs. Reference reframed and answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 227 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the overall transactions result in loss at the hands of the so-called agent. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts of the case, it becomes evident that the property in the goods does not pass in favour of the dealer-opponent society at any stage. The loss in case there be any, is required to be borne by the members in proportion to the goods supplied by them. The society merely acts as a conduit pipe between the members and the purchaser. Applying these very tests to the facts and circumstances in this case, the Tribunal has rightly distinguished the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and it has committed no error in following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khedut Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. 1972 29 STC 105 AIR 1972 SC 1786. 11.. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference is answered as indicated in para 4 of this judgment. Reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 226 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the same and it was not used or consumed within the limits of city of Bangalore and only it was transferred from big packs to small packs. Here in the instant case also, though the question arise altogether under a different statute, it can be said very easily on the basis of the abovesaid Supreme Court decision that the L.P.G. transferred into the small cylinders remains to be L.P.G. In other words there is essentially or commercially no change whatsoever in the basic characteristics of the commodity, namely, the L.P.G. 10.. In view of the abovesaid decision, it becomes clear that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the abovesaid small process could not be said to be a process of manufacture. This question, therefore, requires to be decided in affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We, therefore, decide and reply the abovesaid question accordingly, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... office. It was also contended that the goods were sold at the discretion of the Madras branch and the price collected. This argument of the counsel for the Revenue is contrary to the facts as found by us earlier. We therefore reject the arguments of the counsel for the State. We are also of the opinion that the Joint Commissioner fell into an error by characterising the contract as a formal order and not a firm order. We do not also agree with the observation of the Joint Commissioner that there was no proof to show that the goods as mentioned in the gate pass issued at Calcutta were intended to be delivered to the customers in pursuance of the said contract. The order of the Joint Commissioner is therefore set aside. 7.. The tax case is allowed holding that the turnover of Rs. 16,38,204.93 being the sales of crown corks during the assessment year 1976-77 are not exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 224 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aid proposition as a proposition of universal applicability. It is obvious that as to whether the financial stringency can or cannot be considered a reasonable cause would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Ordinarily when a dealer has collected the amount of tax from the public and has not paid the amount to the Government, the taxing authority concerned would be justified in saying that such an assessee cannot advance the cause of financial stringency. If such dealers are permitted to raise the plea of financial stringency, it would amount to permitting them to use public money for their private gains. It is in this context that the Tribunal has made the aforesaid observations. In our opinion, the Tribunal has correctly held that in the facts of the case the plea of financial stringency was not available to the assessee. 10.. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... revised return under the Act or the Rules, the question that the revised return has been filed belatedly would not arise. That being the position, the levy of penalty under section 12(5)(ii) is not called for. It is only the incorrect return which has been filed which made the assessee suffer the penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. This being the fact situation, no interference is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The tax case revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (6) TMI 222 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... timber may engage himself only in cutting or sawing of the wood which may be soft. If such soft article is sawn or cut the chain saw may not be required to be sharpened often. In that case model 2030 chain sharpener may not be of any use whatsoever to him. On facts found by the Tribunal it cannot be held that model 2030 chain sharpener is an integral part of the process of manufacture, i.e., cutting or sawing of the wood. 15.. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that in a given case the dealer may misuse the provisions by giving wrong description of his article. We do not wish to deal with this contention. If and when a case of such misuse by a dealer is brought to the notice of the appropriate authority or to the notice of this Court, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law and the facts of the case. We do not wish to deal with hypothetical situation. 16.. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 221 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the abovesaid two decisions rendered by the High Court of Gujarat are impliedly overruled or slightly modified by the Supreme Court decision in Raj Sheel case 1989 74 STC 379, then also, our conclusion would be the same. We would prefer to assign our reason for the abovesaid view once more by saying that there is a clear finding of fact in the instant case that there are no two different sales, namely, one of the commodity or the articles sold and the other one of the packing material. In view of this position it becomes clear that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the packing materials were also taxable at the rate of sale of the goods which passed to the purchaser. Looking to the abovesaid position, we answer and reply the questions referred to this Court in affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 220 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the correct conclusion. On the face of it, it is a mistake of fact. Instead of levying tax at the rate of 7 per cent which is the prescribed rate, by mistake or inadvertence, the Sales Tax Officer has ordered to levy tax at the rate of 8 per cent. Even the Sales Tax Officer did not advance the reason that the goods in question were covered by residuary item. It appears that for the first time the question was sought to be raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly rejected this contention. When an article is specifically mentioned in an entry, residuary entry will not be applicable. We don t see any merit in this contention and it is being noted for the purposes of rejecting only. In our opinion the Tribunal has decided the question rightly. 5.. For the aforesaid reasons we answer the question in affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 219 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icer or authority of the Sales Tax Department can make report to the superior forum before which appeal or revision may be pending. This proviso is abundantly clear. We are in agreement with the reasons given and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. If other view is taken, there would be no end to the assessment proceedings. Every now and then the Sales Tax Officer or any other officer or authority would be in a position to intermeddle with the assessment proceedings. Such actions may some times help the department, but in all probability it is likely to cause harassment to the assessee. There is no reason to adopt any other interpretation except the interpretation as canvassed on behalf of the assessee and which has been accepted by the Tribunal. 6.. In above view of the matter we answer the question in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (6) TMI 218 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udes agreement to sell . However, it is also observed that the word sale may include agreement to sell provided, however, there is stipulation in the agreement regarding transfer of property in goods. 14.. In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that the intending purchasers had entered into agreement to sell in which there was stipulation regarding the transfer of the property in the goods. On the contrary the finding of facts is otherwise. The Tribunal has categorically found that the property in the goods has passed only after the goods reached the destination at Rajkot and only after the intending purchaser took delivery, and thereafter inspected the same and approved the same. In our opinion the Tribunal has rightly decided the question. 15.. For the aforesaid reasons we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
