|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 285 Records
-
1992 (3) TMI 328 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r to rule 31 of the Rules. Moreover, section 36(3) of the Bombay Act requires mens rea. The aspect of self assessment was not in issue, nor considered therein. Moreover, under section 38(4) of the Bombay Act, a notice, to be issued by the Commissioner, was mandatory. For the above reasons, the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, reported in Machinery Sales Service case 1990 77 STC 131 is distinguishable and will not apply to the facts of these cases. We overrule the decision in Joy Varghese case 1986 62 STC 227. 10.. We hold that the service of a notice of demand is not an essential pre-requisite for the levy and collection of penal interest under section 23(1) read with section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, read with rule 31 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. In this view of the matter, the penal interest, sought to be collected in these cases, is valid and proper. We dismiss O.P. No. 3501 of 1986 and W.A. No. 16 of 1988. Petition and appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 327 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... From the available materials in O.P. No. 2361 of 1984, it is not possible to decide as to whether the petitioner will be liable to pay penal interest at all or whether their liability will have to be reduced. It is a matter which the 2nd respondent will have to decide afresh, in the light of subsections (3) to (6) of section 23 and in the light of exhibit P1, the final order of assessment. 20.. In the result, O.P. No. 9277 of 1983 is dismissed. O.P. No. 2361 of 1984 is allowed and exhibit P1 order to the extent it imposes a penal interest of Rs. 58,332.54 is quashed. The 2nd respondent will be at liberty to decide afresh the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay penal interest at all or is liable to pay any lesser amount, in the light of subsections (3) to (6) of section 23 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, taking into account the final order of assessment. There will be no order as to costs. O.P. No. 9277 of 1983 dismissed. O.P. No. 2361 of 1984 allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 326 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... To the extent that it is not for the transfer of goods, it is not liable to tax. It would be for the assessing authority to determine in every case the extent of the sale price that is so taxable. It would be possible to come to such conclusion if reference is made to the statistics governing a particular lottery. It is needless to say that it would be obligatory for the dealer to place before the assessing authority such statistics as it may require. In this view of the matter, the assessment order is set aside in so far as it does not consider the splitting of the sale price of the lottery tickets in the manner aforestated. The clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in this behalf must also be set aside. The matter shall stand remanded to the assessing authority for the purposes of making a fresh assessment order having regard to what has been stated in this judgment. The appeal is allowed to the extent aforesaid. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 325 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the Notification dated March 29, 1986, the definition in the Act of 1968 indirectly applies, because the trade circle and the commercial parlance must follow the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968. This is a peculiar situation, but undoubtedly our view is the only appropriate solution, because otherwise there will be a complete anarchy. Let us think of a situation where we apply the Act of 1941 to the mat taking it as a noninsecticide, but the trader is bound to take a licence under the Insecticides Act, treating it as an insecticide. This is a highly anomalous situation which itself is a very strong reason for holding that the mat containing Allethrin is an insecticide as understood under the impugned notification dated March 29, 1986, issued under the Act of 1954. Accordingly, I agree with the honourable Chairman that the mat as sold by the applicant-company is an insecticide and must be governed for the purpose of taxation under the Act of 1954. Application allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 324 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e certificate of registration, the penalty under section 5C(2) cannot be levied on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to purchase the items as raw material. Regarding the matter for purchase of other raw materials, on which it was to be considered as to whether an offence has been committed or not on the basis of prudent man theory, the matter was already remanded and in respect of the remand proceedings it has been observed by the Sales Tax Tribunal that the penalty was again levied. The final outcome would depend on the decision, which may be given in respect of the orders passed subsequently giving effect to the remand order. The order of the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case has been upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal it is justified and I do not feel that there is any justification in interfering with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the revisions have no force and are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 323 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itioners, submitted that the respondents-authorities having accepted the declaration for all these years, could not have deleted the entries with retrospective effect and ordered initiation of penalty proceedings. It was strenuously urged that the penalty proceedings should not be made retrospectively. 19.. This point was also raised before the revisional authority and it has been rightly pointed out that the petitioners can well raise this point in the penalty proceedings (see revisional order dated November 30, 1991 filed as annexure F to the petition). Since it is open to the petitioners to raise this point before the appropriate authority, we do not comment any more on this aspect of the matter. It is open to the petitioners to raise this point before the appropriate authority, if they so choose. 20.. For the foregoing reasons these petitions are liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng to the learned counsel for the petitioner-club, in respect of the turnover that relates to the transactions for the period February 2, 1983 to June 30, 1985, no tax can be levied. Having regard to the provisions of section 5-C of the Act and the definition of dealer , we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-club. As already mentioned, the four components that have to be specifically indicated for levying the tax have been clearly mentioned in section 5-C of the Act itself which has been given retrospective effect from February 2, 1983. If the petitioner raises the plea before the assessing authority that it had not collected the tax till September 13, 1985, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed. In those circumstances, we do not see any ground to interfere in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of assessee in revising the return immediately after inspection shows his bona fide that he was not aware of the taxability of the item and, therefore, there was bona fide dispute in his mind. Besides this, this Court has taken a view in the case of Sojat Lime Co. 1989 74 STC 288 that where the transaction is recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee consciously concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was bona fide belief in the mind of the assessee regarding the taxability of foreign liquor as Indian made foreign liquor, which was exempt in Rajasthan and the exemption was claimed in the return as this foreign liquor was purchased by the assessee from Delhi as tax-free. This being the position, I am of the view that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty. Consequently, the revision petition has no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 320 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f agreement. No element of sale has been proved in this case and the transfers to the branches which have issued C forms cannot be considered to be a sale and therefore, is not an inter-State sale. Once it is held that the transaction is not a sale, then the question would arise that the purchase by the assessee against the declaration form for resale or for inter-State sale which have been made from a manufacturer becomes liable to tax. The new provisions of section 5-A as inserted by Act No. 8 of 1990 makes the liability of the dealer to pay the tax on the purchase price of such goods with retrospective effect and therefore, the assessee is liable to pay purchase tax. The order of the Board of Revenue being contrary to the provisions of the Act is quashed and the matter is sent back to the assessing authority for determining the liability afresh in view of the provisions of section 5-A of the Act. The revision application is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 319 - INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... ied for nine months. There is no delay in filing the return of income as far as assessment year 1988-89 is concerned. As regards interest under section 215/217, we order that the same may be levied for one year from the due dates for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Since the applicant has co-operated in the proceedings before the commission and has furnished true and full particulars of his income, penalties under sections 2 71 and 2 73 are waived and immunity is granted from prosecution under the Income-tax Act in respect of all matters covered by this order. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute the tax and interest on the total income as per annexure to this order and intimate the same to the applicant who has agreed to pay the tax and interest within 35 days of the receipt of a copy of the order. This order shall be. declared void if it is subsequently found by the Commission that the same has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
-
1992 (3) TMI 318 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... etation rendered is that he is also an affected person in terms of section 68A(2). It is hardly possible to render such an interpretation in view of the clear law enacted by the Legislature. There is no ambiguity in the existing law which needs to be rectified by rendering a particular interpretation. The freezing of property under section 68F read with section 68E is a procedural step which may ultimately result in forfeiture thereof or otherwise. The property of a person who is not covered by the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act cannot be forfeited. If the property of a person cannot be forfeited, it would be anomalous to hold that it can be frozen under section 68F read with section 68E. The contention of Shri Sethna, therefore, cannot be upheld. In view of the discussion above, the appeal is allowed and the order A freezing the shop of the appellant under section 68F read with section 68E is set aside. The possession of the shop be restored to the appellant forthwith.
-
1992 (3) TMI 317 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Recovery proceedings - Held that:- As during the pendency of the appeal, Revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings in respect of penalty amount. The Bench had ordered to deposit the full duty amount of Rs. 3,06,925/- on or before the 1st March, 1992. In the interest of justice, the time for payment of duty amount extended till the 30th June, 1992.
-
1992 (3) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... DR, is also of the same view i.e. the case be remanded. 5. emsp We have considered the submissions and have gone through the aforesaid two Orders, cited above at the Bar, and find that the manufacturing process involved in those cases is identical to the present case. Therefore, following the ratio of the said decision, we hold that the said product namely, lsquo Amino Globin rsquo is classifiable under Tariff Item 1B. As regards the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 17/70, dated 1-3-1970, as amended by Notification No. 98/81, we think it proper that the case should go back to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, for determining the claim of the appellants under the said Notification. In view of our aforesaid findings regarding classification, he is advised to do the same within three months from date of the receipt of the Order, after observing the principles of natural justice. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed by remand, as aforesaid.
-
1992 (3) TMI 315 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn, woollen yarn - Notification 237/76-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... rocess of dying of grey woollen yarn to produce dyed woollen yarn is a process of manufacture attracting central excise duty on the new product. In such a view of the matter, when once the Assistant Collector, on the above said reasoning, had come to the conclusion that it has not been proved to his satisfaction that the yarn in the hands of M/s. Raymond in respect of which set off is claimed under Notification 237/76 has been manufactured out of duty paid wool tops, denial of such set off cannot be held to be unlawful. It is also noted that the High Court had set aside the earlier order of the Assistant Collector and had directed the Assistant Collector ldquo to hear and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law rdquo , and the Assistant Collector rsquo s order followed. In the result, the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal of the Deptt. is allowed and that of M/s. Raymonds is dismissed. The Cross Objections are also, accordingly, disposed of.
-
1992 (3) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT
Whether it was not competent for the Tamil Nadu Legislature to declare that the theatres situated within the five kilometre radius (belt) of the municipal corporation areas and the areas of special grade municipalities shall be subjected to the same method of taxation as the theatres situated within the said areas?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Not impressed by the argument that the impugned changeover amounts to unreasonable restriction upon the petitioners' fundamental right to trade. Whichever the system, the exhibitor's liability is only to make over the tax collected by him to the State. We have referred hereinbefore to material placed before the court, which shows that the theatres situated within the belts are in no way differently situated than the theatres located within the corporation areas. It may also be noted that all that has been done by the impugned provision is to bring back these theatres to admission system, by which they were governed prior to 1978 amendment.
-
1992 (3) TMI 302 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... bt due to the petitioners, the court will have no choice but to pass an order for winding up the company. By non-payment of the undisputed debt within the period of statutory demand, the company is deemed unable to pay its debts and where the company is unable to pay its debts, winding up ought generally to follow in the public interest, so that the public does not unwarily deal with the company and jeopardise its interests. The petitioners have established that the debt is clear, valid in law, unimpeachable and indisputable and are entitled to a winding up order ex debito justitiae. In my opinion, the petitioners are not acting unreasonably in having the company wound up. On the facts and in the circumstances, it is just and equitable that the company is wound up. The petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c ). At the request of Mr. Cooper, the operation of this order has been stayed for a period of three weeks. Certified copy to be issued expeditiously.
-
1992 (3) TMI 301 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company – Change of name by, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... f amalgamation is required to be deleted therefrom. In the result, with the deletion of para 16 from the proposed scheme of amalgamation, both the petitions succeed and sanction is accorded to the proposed scheme of amalgamation with the deletion of the said para 16 therefrom. The transferee company is, however, at liberty to adopt proceedings for change of its name after complying with the requirements of section 21 of the said Act. Company Petition No. 537 of 1991 is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c ) and (d) and Company Petition No. 538 of 1991 is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c ) with the deletion of the said para 16 from the proposed scheme of amalgamation. The transferor company shall pay the costs of the Regional Director and of the official liquidator quantified at Rs. 500 each. The transferee company shall pay the costs of the Regional Director quantified at Rs, 500. Issuance of certified copy of the minutes of this order is expedited.
-
1992 (3) TMI 300 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1992 (3) TMI 299 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet, Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... is submitted that in these circumstances the petitioner-company is not able to be so from 1989 onwards. It is, therefore, prayed that a suitable order regarding this may be given to enable the company to prepare the accounts and records for filing before the Registrar of Companies It is submitted by learned counsel that, in these circumstances, it is apprehended that the managing director of the company and other directors might be prosecuted under section 210 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. I have heard both the parties and gone through the petition and the reply filed. In the circumstances stated above, I deem it appropriate that after the company is revived, it shall file the necessary records within six months including the audited balance-sheet as required under the provisions of section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. Till then no prosecution may be launched against its directors under section 210/220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition is disposed of as above.
-
1992 (3) TMI 281 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Order made in any Court to be enforced by other Courts ... ... ... ... ..... ecial appeal did not lie, and the appeal in no uncertain terms sought stay of the proceedings before this court, a stay which was not granted, reverting back to this court, the applicants, simultaneously, seek further interim orders from the court. There cannot be confusion in proceedings before two courts. Thus, as the applicants counsel contends, let the applicants go to the trial court on the consideration of the proposed compromise. This court will consider this prayer on the interim orders sought after the applicants appear before the trial court. After all, the trial court will in any case report to this court on the compromise proposed. Today parties submit that they agree to present themselves before the trial court on April 15, 1992, parties are further agreed that this matter may come up before this court, next on May 5, 1992. List before this court on May 5, 1992. Let this order be laid by the Registrar before the Hon ble Chief Justice for his considered attention.
........
|
