|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 192 Records
-
1993 (12) TMI 221
... ...
... ... ..... sion had been couched, which came up for consideration, resulting in the expression of such an opinion. In such a situation, it is not permissible to make an inference that the said Act contains a provision in pari materia with section 19 of the TNGST Act, 1959. If such a provision does really exist in the said Act and despite such a provision, if the opinion, as expressed above, had been given, I respectfully agree to disagree with the same, inasmuch as the meaning to be ascribed to the doctrine of joint and several liability does not appear to have reflected therein. In this view of the matter, the said decision does not, in any way, improve or advance the case of the petitioner any further whatever. 15.. For the reasons as above, both these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed even at the admission stage and they are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.M.Ps., are also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 220
... ...
... ... ..... reme Court considered this question in the light of the provisions in article 246(1) of the Constitution as well as entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule, which empowered the State to legislate for taxes on purchase of goods. It was held by the Supreme Court in that case that entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule empowered the State to legislate for taxes on purchase of goods and that, in pith and substance, legislative incompetence cannot void the Purchase Tax Act. Similarly, in the present case, though tobacco is a covered field under the Act of 1975 gurakhu can, on the basis of the distinct entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule, be taxed under the Entry Tax Act. Entry tax on gurakhu has no proximate connection with the control or regulation of the tobacco industry. 26.. All the contentions of Mr. N. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the applicant thus fail. I am, accordingly, of the opinion that the application will be dismissed. Application dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 219
... ...
... ... ..... alisation of the said arrears. But without resorting to such a course, the departmental officials were rather courteous in issuing the impugned proceedings to the petitioner-assessee demanding payment of the additional sales tax arrears payable within the prescribed time on each of the months of the period of assessment, of course, by way of one composite notice, about which there is no prohibition at all intimating it that the non-payment of the same is likely to result in coercive proceedings for recovery of arrears of such tax, by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. In such a situation, I am unable to see anything wrong in the issuance of such proceedings. 12.. For the above reasons, it goes without saying that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, even at the admission stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. is also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 218
... ...
... ... ..... that the purchase tax cannot be demanded on the basis of the State advised minimum price unless the said advised price has been paid or agreed to be paid by the purchaser. We have also held that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax on the price paid by them. Our decision is based on findings of facts particular to these cases and therefore, in our view, these cases involve no substantial question of law of general importance, which in our opinion needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The oral request for certificate is therefore, rejected. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the stay regarding payment of additional amount of purchase tax as demanded by the impugned notice and which stay is current during the pendency of the writ petition, is continued for a further period of four weeks from today, to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court in an appeal against the present judgment. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (12) TMI 217
... ...
... ... ..... antial defects which have been noted in the accounts, we do not find our way to accept the submission that this addition is in any way arbitrary. All the three fact-finding authorities have concurred in holding that this addition was only reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.. We do not find any error of law in the decision of the Tribunal justifying interference under section 41 of the Act on this point. This plea raised by the assessee is therefore overruled. The tax revision cases are therefore allowed in part. The orders of the Tribunal impugned are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the question whether the assessee is the first seller within the State in respect of the disputed transactions. The Tribunal will deal with and dispose of all the cases together in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs in these tax revision cases. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 216
... ...
... ... ..... . Decisions can be multiplied but ultimately the court still is faced with the problem of applying the principles to the facts of the case. To me it looks that the instant case is more nearer to the timber case and the decision referred in Bangalore Wood Industries case 1994 92 STC 603 (Kar) has a strong bearing. These are not ordinary stones. The stones have special value in the market and no doubt the marketable quality of these stones is enhanced by the polishing and cutting. The substance of the material is not altered. The article is made more presentable and attractive for the benefit of the users and therefore it cannot be said that the activity referred by the petitioners cannot be held to be a manufacturing activity (sic). To avail the benefit of exemption notification dated March 31, 1983, the goods should be manufactured . Such is not the case here. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed. Here italicised.
-
1993 (12) TMI 215
... ...
... ... ..... urt. Before us the learned Government Advocate stated that this would be done. Shri Dharmadhikari submitted that as the petitioner could not produce before the Sales Tax Officer the material he intended to for showing that he was not liable to pay sales tax as he remained under the impression that the assessment proceedings would not be resumed until after the disposal of the reference a direction should be given to the appellate authority that the petitioner be allowed to produce this material. No such direction can be given by us in these proceedings, but we have no doubt that when the appeal filed by the petitioner comes up for hearing and the petitioner makes a prayer for being allowed to produce additional material it will receive proper and due consideration at the hands of the appellate authority. 6.. For these reasons this petition is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. The security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 214
Condonation of delay - Held that:- Application dismissed. The Advocate-on-Record got the special leave petition drafted from the drafting Advocate and sent the same for approval to the Board on June 24, 1993 along with the case file & the Board returned the case file to the Advocate-on-Record on July 9, 1993 who resent the same to the Board on September 20, 1993 requesting that draft SLP was not approved by the Board. The Board after approving the draft SLP sent this file to CAS on October 1, 1993 explanation is incapable of furnishing a judicially acceptable ground for condonation of delay.
-
1993 (12) TMI 213
Confiscation and penalty - EXIM Policy ... ... ... ... ..... hat lsquo Bezel fitted with glass rsquo is not a complete watch case but only a part of watch case. 7. emsp Examining this finding in the light of the relevant import policy cited and relied upon by the appellants, I find that the Negative list includes only watch cases and not spares/parts of watch cases. When this is read with the Public Notice cited and relied upon by the appellants, I find that import of spare/parts of consumer goods is permitted without a licence. 8. emsp In regard to established practice, I find from the evidence on record that Custom Houses have been allowing import of lsquo Bezel fitted with glass rsquo without a licence. I therefore, hold that one matter being treated as a established practice is debatable. 9. emsp Having regard to the above findings, I hold that no licence was required under the relevant policy for import of lsquo Bezel fitted with glass rsquo . In this view of the matter, the appeals are rejected and the impugned orders are upheld.
-
1993 (12) TMI 212
Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... cturers and it does not seem to refer to production in different independent factories or units by different manufacturers. 28. emsp Further, there is no provision in the entire notification which would come in the way of extending exemption to goods of a particular brand being manufactured by one or more manufacturers by mutual consent (or otherwise) for that matter. In fact units/factories/firms which are independent legal entities and were in fact really distinct are different assessees in their own right entitled to such benefits as the law may provide to each one of them. 29. emsp In view of the above discussions I agree with the views of Hon rsquo ble Member (T). 30. emsp The file may be returned to the original Bench for passing the final order. Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice-President Dated 9-12-1993 MAJORITY ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the appeals are allowed. Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (T) Dated 17-12-1993 Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Dated 17-12-1993
-
1993 (12) TMI 211
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... te submits that this issue is already covered by Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the appellant rsquo s own case vide its order Nos. E/47 to 50/92-B1, dt. 4-2-1992 as also judgment in other cases, for example, - (i) Order No. E/7/93-B1, dt. 31-12-1992 (ii) Order Nos. E/271 to 275/92-B1, dt. 4-12-1992. Ld. JDR, Sh. K.K. Dutta for the Revenue concedes the aforesaid position. 2. emsp Following the ratio of earlier judgments of the Tribunal as aforesaid, we allow the present appeal.
-
1993 (12) TMI 204
Board’s sanction to be required for certain contracts in which directors are interested ... ... ... ... ..... did not choose to offer any explanation and at this stage that would suffice to prima facie indicate the mens rea required for the offence alleged. The averments in the complaint also show that petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the officers in default within the meaning of section 5 of the Act and the records of the company confirm the said position. Merely because the exact word knowingly found in section 5 of the Act, as it existed earlier, has not been quoted in the complaint, it does not stand to reason to contend that mens rea has not been alleged in respect of petitioners Nos. 2 to 7. If petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 claim that they did not have the mens rea required under section 5 of the Act, it will always be open to them to put forth this defence before the trial Magistrate for appreciation. The second ground also has no strength whatever. Both grounds are rejected. This petition shall stand dismissed, subject to certain observations, which form an integral part of this order.
-
1993 (12) TMI 201
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... aid view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the present petition is incompetent and is not maintainable. In the affidavit in support several other grounds have been raised pointing out alleged non-compliance with the various requirements of the Act in support of the contention that the petition is not maintainable. However, I do not think it necessary to deal with them in view of my aforesaid conclusion. In the result the judge s summons is made absolute in terms of prayer ( a) and petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioners therein to file a fresh winding up petition after serving a fresh notice on the company in accordance with section 434 of the Companies Act. The petitioners also will be at liberty to adopt the contents of the notice dated January 23, 1991. Exhibit B to the petition in the fresh notice to be served under section 434 of the Act with necessary variations, if any, required to be made in order to demand the sum then due . No order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 200
Certain perosns not to be appointed as managing director ... ... ... ... ..... e been adjudged as insolvent The trial judge felt that the appellant should be treated as being adjudged insolvent during the interregnum between the order of the appellate court and the order of the Supreme Court, In our judgment, the reasoning and the conclusion is entirely erroneous and grant of injunction was uncalled for. The result of the finding of the trial judge is that although the insolvency, proceedings are set aside, the appellant will be treated as being adjudged insolvent for his entire life. It is impossible to put such a construction on the order of the Supreme Court as it would lead to unusual results. In our judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the grant 6f injunction was inappropriate. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated February 6, 1992, passed by the learned single judge on Notice of Motion No. 1802 of 1991 is set aside and the motion stands dismissed/In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 199
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... of the case, as pointed out while discussing point No. 2. Point No. 3. mdash The order under appeal in so far as it restrains the Company Law Board from entertaining and considering the interim applications is liable to be interfered with. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part the order dated October 15, 1993, passed by the learned single judge in C. M. A. No. 1017 of 1993 in so far as it directs the Company Law Board not to entertain the interim applications and consider the same, pending decision on the question of maintainability is set aside. Consequently, the Company Law Board is at liberty to entertain the interim applications and consider them in accordance with law. In other respects, the order of the learned single judge is maintained. However, it is directed that the Company Law Board shall decide the question of maintainability on or before the end of March, 1994. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 198
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... present proceedings and relegate the petitioner to the remedy of a civil suit where all such questions can be gone into after recording evidence. In case the petitioner files a suit against the company, the latter, on being served in the said suit, shall within one month from the date of service furnish security (other than cash and bank guarantee) for the amount which the petitioner would claim in the suit to the satisfaction of the trial court which will accept the same after notice to the parties. It is, however, made clear that whatever has been stated hereinabove is only for the purposes of, disposing of the present petition and nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of my opinion on any of the issues that may arise between the parties in the civil suit and the trial court would be free to decide those issues in the light of the evidence that may be led before it by the parties. With these observations, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 197
Winding-up of unregistered companies ... ... ... ... ..... responsibility on her behalf. It cannot be that she did not understand the question because she is fairly proficient in English. But whatever her case might be as regards the accounts for the financial year ended March 31, 1986, there can be no doubt that she accepted the accounts up to the financial year ending March 31, 1985, and her case that accounts had to be rendered from April 14, 1984, does not stand scrutiny. The respondents no doubt contend that the petitioner did not want to continue as partner after the death of her father on October 2, 1985, and that in her place also her mother Smt. B. Saraswathi Bai was taken as a partner and that a fresh partnership deed was executed on October 14, 1985. But they have not produced any evidence to substantiate their case and did not examine even the tenth respondent who gave the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. However, in view of my finding that the company petition is barred by time, it is dismissed. No costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 178
Securities, Contracts in notified areas illegal in certain circumstances, Power to prohibit contracts in certain cases, Listing of dealers in securities in certain cases, Discharge of liabilities
-
1993 (12) TMI 177
... ...
... ... ..... t. as allowed by the learned single judge, it has to be limited to 4 per cent. from the date of the notice of payment up to the date of winding-up order until paid for the reasons of the aforesaid rule. In the result, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are dismissed subject to the modification in the order as to rate of interest. On the facts as above, the contributories have made themselves liable for self costs, but we are, in the instant case, not making any such order, because learned counsel appearing for the appellants has given us full and satisfactory assistance, all relevant citations and information s as and when found necessary by us and thus assisted the court in full. There shall for the said reason be no order as to costs. The hearing of this case has got almost every counsel engaged and in our view in the instant case learned counsel appearing for the liquidator should also receive adequate fee. We accordingly fix the hearing fee for him at Rs. 6,000.
-
1993 (12) TMI 167
Adjudication - Remand - New Plea ... ... ... ... ..... is a case for levy of duty on electric generating set under Heading 85.02 because of assembly on behalf of the applicants. We are not in agreement with the contention of the applicants that the goods are immovable property and therefore, not liable to any duty. However, ld. Advocate rsquo s contention regarding availability of Modvat credit and non-addition of margin of profit in the circumstances above needs to be re-examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the applicants are directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 2,32,955.29 within a period of 4 weeks from today. On compliance with the aforesaid direction to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority, the matter is remanded to the said authority for re-examination of the two new points urged by the applicants, as referred to above. He would quantify the demand of duty after hearing the applicants, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 4. emsp Stay petition and appeal is disposed of in above terms.
........
|
