|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 266 Records
-
1993 (8) TMI 280
... ...
... ... ..... tled to sales tax holiday for a period of five years subject to a ceiling of Rs. 35,00,000 on sales tax during the entire holiday period. We further hold that restriction or reduction of such eligibility to the sum of 100 per cent of the capital investment under clause 613(ii) of the Manual of Instructions or the eligibility fixed by the District Committee or the orders of assessment are illegal and unenforceable. There will be a consequential direction that the respondents shall give full effect to the eligibility of the petitioners in terms of clause 3 of G.O. No. 498 to the extent mentioned above for the period provided not exceeding five years and that the respondents shall not demand or collect sales tax from the petitioners except after granting the benefits of tax holiday in the amount and within the period as mentioned above. 14.. We allow the writ petitions but in the facts and circumstances we order that parties shall suffer the respective costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 279
... ...
... ... ..... r any arrears of tax due for the period when the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, was in force. The provisions of section 61 of the KGST Act, 1963, preserve the rights and liabilities accrued or incurred under the 1125 Act and the new liability created under section 23(3) of the 1963 Act cannot have any application for the arrears of sales tax due for the period when the 1125 Act was in force. 11.. As we have held that section 23(3) of the 1963 Act cannot have any application for the assessment year in question, it is not necessary for us to consider the other grounds raised by the petitioner in this original petition and they are left open. 12.. In the result, we allow this original petition and quash exhibit P9 notice to the extent of the demand of Rs. 27,849.80 towards penal interest made therein. The department will be free to enforce exhibit P9 in regard to the balance amount due from the petitioner, if not already paid. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 278
... ...
... ... ..... lectricity was sanctioned, the unit was an incomplete unit whether certificate of registration from the department is necessary to complete the process, is unnecessary to be decided here, because, the relevant date is October 1, 1988, on which date there was not even an order sanctioning electricity, which is an important element in making a unit functional. The fact that loan was obtained from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation earlier to October 1, 1988 is entirely irrelevant. Availability of the requisite funds to start the setting up of an industrial unit would not result in establishing the unit on the date of the availability of funds. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The impugned order dated September 30, 1992 is set aside. Respondents are directed to release the balance of the subsidy under the Government Order No. CCI 223. SPC 89 dated 28/29th November 1989, to the petitioner forthwith. Rule made absolute. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 277
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant shows his inability to pay the tax, etc., as mentioned under section 39(5) of the Act. Such determination of cause can also be at the time of hearing of the appeal, on reasons to be recorded in writing, i.e., the appellate authority can direct the stay of recovery of amount or part thereof subject to furnishing of bank guarantee or adequate security in the prescribed manner. In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal did not advert to exercise jurisdiction in the matter of disposal of the application filed by the appellant on merits. As already stated above, no specific limit is prescribed for filing such like application. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The same is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on August 25, 1993. For interim directions, if any, the petitioner will approach the Tribunal. In the meantime, no further recovery will be effected.
-
1993 (8) TMI 276
... ...
... ... ..... there was an attempt to evade tax due under the Act. This crucial aspect has not been properly adverted to or adjudicated by the Tribunal while holding that penalty is exigible in the instant case. We therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated October 24, 1991 to this extent and order a remit of the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad, for a fresh and proper investigation in accordance with law. The revision is allowed to the above extent. 5.. We are distressed to note that though the transport of the goods was on August 17, 1983 and the explanations were received thereafter, no action was taken in the matter for nearly three years and the order was passed by the Intelligence Officer only on January 20, 1986. The long delay in passing the order by the Intelligence Officer speaks for itself. We do not think that it is prudent to make any further comment in the matter. The revision is allowed, with costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 275
... ...
... ... ..... that a lenient view should be taken. But it is for the Board of Revenue (Taxes) to consider this aspect of the matter as to whether any administrative relief should be given in marginal or borderline cases. Just as in the case of penal action the difference of 1 per cent for the stock above 10 kgs. and the difference of 2 per cent when the stock is 10 kgs. or less is ignored, in the case of assessment, some similar indulgence or margin can be considered by the Board of Revenue. But it is not for this Court to substitute its own opinion in the matter. We should state that no argument was addressed about the legality or validity of the circular mentioned above in any respect. The various aspects focussed about the circular may be matters to be brought before the Board of Revenue for such action as the Board may deem fit. We do not propose to examine the matter at length since this was never raised before any of the authorities. The revisions are dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 274
... ...
... ... ..... due diligence. Only if after the exercise of due diligence the applicant did not have knowledge of, or was not in a position to produce, the facts, the applicant can avail himself of the remedy of review. In either event, the facts must be such which came to the knowledge of the assessee subsequently and which could not be produced after the exercise of due diligence. The requirement of exercise of due diligence applies to both the limits, viz., knowledge and inability to produce. 11.. We are in respectful agreement with the above observations of the Madras High Court. The result is that there has not been a discovery of new and important fact since the date of the order of the Tribunal enabling petitioner to seek review of the order. The petition was rightly held to be not maintainable by the majority of the members of the Tribunal. There is no error of law requiring correction in revision. Both the tax revision cases are therefore dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 273
... ...
... ... ..... , abundantly clear that the power of sales tax authorities making seizure and/or confiscation is limited to goods carried and not to the vehicle or boat, as the case may be. 4.. The petitioner is a registered dealer. On its filing an undertaking before the Sales Tax Officer-in-charge of the check-gate that particulars in respect of goods carried shall be duly incorporated in the books of account, no further action shall be taken by the Officer-in-charge of the check-post. The petitioner shall also file details of goods carried before the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle, so that necessary verification can be made as to whether requisite particulars have been duly incorporated in the books of account. Till completion of assessment by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle, bank guarantee shall remain in operation, and shall be renewed by the petitioner, if directed by the assessing officer. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. D.M. PATNAIK, J.-I agree.
-
1993 (8) TMI 272
... ...
... ... ..... interest provided the petitioner gives adequate security enabling the department to realise the amount of refund made to the petitioner in case the department was able to succeed in the tax revision case stated to have been filed by them. Such an argument cannot at all be countenanced on the face of the sanguine provisions adumbrated under section 39-A of the Act. It is permissible for the department to obtain stay of refund by filing the necessary application in the tax case filed by them under the provisions of section 39-A of the Act. Admittedly, no such order had been obtained so far. In such a circumstance, there cannot be an impediment or obstacle for this Court to issue a direction to the respondent to make refund as prayed for by the petitioner with 12 per cent interest per annum within four weeks from today. 3.. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (8) TMI 271
... ...
... ... ..... ression, namely, he shall detain the goods and direct the driver or any other person in-charge of the goods vehicle or boat, or the consignor or the consignee, has been appended and by such appendage, the position previously obtaining got a metamorphic change and made it legitimately possible for the department to demand tax due for the detained goods carried without the necessary and requisite documents either from the driver or from any other person in-charge of the goods vehicle or the boat or the consignor or the consignee and such being the case, the decisions, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any help or assistance in projecting or advancing his case to any extent whatever. 15.. For the reasons, as above, the writ petition and W.M.P. deserve to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. Rule nisi issued shall stand discharged. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 270
... ...
... ... ..... ion that the case involves further investigation and that the assessing authority failed to probe into the relevant questions properly. 27.. In these cases the revisional authority has found from the perusal of the records that there are certain discrepancies which we have already noted. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by any of the authorities, and the explanation is such that it is not possible for us to decide the same as to its acceptability. In the circumstances, we are of the view that various orders of the revisional authority are to be upheld subject to the modifications which we have already referred earlier. It is also clarified that the assessing authority shall proceed to enquire into the specific point referred in the order of remand as modified by us, and thereafter make a proper assessment order. The order of remand in none of these cases could be termed as an open remand order. S.T.R.Ps. are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 269
Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ame in accordance with the laws relating to sales-tax. This facility is provided by the first proviso to section 43B as introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988. It has been decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief Commissioner (Admn.) v. Sonjay Sales Syndicate 1992 197 ITR 255 that this proviso has got to be considered as merely declaratory in nature and hence, would be applicable in retrospective manner also. By respectfully following the said decision of the Karnataka High Court, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer, in this case, to find out whether and to what extent the amount disallowed by him under section 43B fulfills the condition as laid down in the first proviso to that section. The assessee shall get reduction out of the disallowance to the corresponding extent. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant such benefit to the assessee. 10. In the result, both the appeals are partially allowed to the above-mentioned extent.
-
1993 (8) TMI 268
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... present suit is maintainable against the guarantors as well who, according to the averments in the plaint, are jointly and severally liable under the same contract. While upholding the objection raised on behalf of the official liquidator and rejecting the one raised on behalf of the guarantors, I grant leave to the bank to institute and proceed with the present suit in this court against the company as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 4 who are allegedly the guarantors, provided that the bank makes up the deficiency in court fee within a period of four weeks from today failing which the application for leave will be deemed to have been dismissed. The suit will then proceed on the merits in accordance with law and it will be open to the respondents to take up all such pleas as may be available to them and nothing said herein should be taken as an expression of opinion on any of the matters arising in the suit. The application is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 267
Name of Charitable or other company – Power to dispense with 'Limited' in ... ... ... ... ..... be any better example than this where the respondent wants to take over the staff control which is entirely under the control of the executive committee under the articles of association. In so far as Apparel Export Promotion Council is a company licensed under section 25 of the Companies Act, if the articles of association are read together with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,1 do not think that the directions issued in this case can be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned directions are liable to be set aside. Since I am deciding the issue on the question of jurisdiction under the articles of association read with Companies Act, I am not entering into the merits of the case wherein both parties allege factually in their affidavit as to what is the background for the issuance of directions, which are impugned herein. In the result, the impugned order of the respondent is set aside and the writ petition shall stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 266
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... e misfeasance summons. It is going to be extremely difficult, looking to the lapse of time, for the respondents to defend themselves properly, just as it is going to be difficult for the official liquidator to establish these charges. Relevant papers, vouchers and other documents may not be forthcoming especially when the misfeasance summons itself was taken out more than 30 years after the alleged misconduct, Eight out of the sixteen respondents had died before the misfeasance summons was taken out. The official liquidator has made no attempt to bring on record the heirs of six out of the eight deceased tortfeasors. His attempt to bring on record the heirs of the remaining two has also proved unsuccessful. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by restoring the misfeasance summons. The appeal is, therefore, dismisses ndash though for reasons somewhat different from those stated by the learned judge. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 265
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... feguards provided in the Companies Act to bring to book any person who is responsible for any misdeed if so alleged and proved even if the company is ordered to be wound up. At any rate, in view of the fact that the ground urged under section 433(c), viz., the suspension of business for more than one year stands clearly established, there is sufficient justification for winding up of the company. It is all the more fair and equitable to do so in view of the majority opinion of the shareholders expressed in a special meeting called for this purpose. In the circumstances, I allow the petition and the official liquidator who has been functioning as the provisional liquidator of the company is appointed as the official liquidator and the registry is directed to issue orders in Form No. 52 of the Companies (Court) Rules. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000 to the official liquidator to cover the initial expenses in the matter within a period of three months from today.
-
1993 (8) TMI 250
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ly when there is no practical possibility of remedying the mismanagement that it becomes a proper case for winding up on the just and equitable ground. Doing of an unauthorised business and entering into ultra vires transactions will not furnish a just and equitable ground for an order of winding up. Reference can be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Seth Mohan Lal v. Grain Chambers Ltd. 1968 38 Comp. Cas. 543 as well as to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Bhaskar Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajinder Nath Bhaskar 1988 63 Comp. Cas. 184. On the ground of reduction of the share capital, mismanagement and oppression, the petitioners can invoke the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under section 397 and can file civil suit for seeking relief. To my mind, the remedy of winding up is not the answer, and, therefore, the petition as such is not maintainable under section 433(f) of the Act. Company Petition No. 35 of 1993 stands dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 249
Interest, Payment of subsequent interest ... ... ... ... ..... ion in an insolvency case and up to the date of presentation of the winding up petition in the case of an insolvent company. It was urged that the said case related to an unsecured creditor and so the dictum therein cannot be applied to the present case. Whether it be an unsecured creditor or a secured creditor, the insolvency proceedings do not permit payment of interest after the date of adjudication of insolvency. The applicant, as one of the secured creditors, along with the workers of the company, is entitled to get the claim admitted regarding interest only up to the date of winding up and the payment of interest after that date will be governed by rule 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules or section 61(6) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In both cases, the payment of interest after the date of winding up will arise only where there is surplus. The adjudication made by the liquidator does not call for any interference. The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 248
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... ector to raise this very plea by filing an objection petition in the execution proceedings. The answer in my view has to be in the negative. The precise objection now sought to be raised was already raised in the eviction application and overruled by the learned Rent Controller. This objection is now clearly barred by the principle of res judicata. If such a plea is again allowed to be raised in execution proceedings by way of an objection petition, it will open a flood gate of litigations and will in other words permit the parties to rake up matters which have already been settled by a court of competent jurisdiction between them. Thus, it cannot be said that the order passed by the executing court is without jurisdiction as has been sought to be contended by counsel for the petitioners. For the reasons recorded above, this revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. Parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the executing court for further proceedings.
-
1993 (8) TMI 238
District forum—Jurisdiction of, Compensation ... ... ... ... ..... ppears that the courier service could not serve the envelop to the respondent No. 1 but for that the appellant should not be held responsible. 7. The application was submitted at Rajkot and the branch office of the appellant is situated at Rajkot and as the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint should be filed within the jurisdiction of the Forum where the opposite party is residing or carrying on the business or where the cause of action has arisen. The District Forum Junagarh had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The result is that the appeal should be allowed and the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagarh, should be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagarh, is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs of the complaint and appeal. Appeal allowed.
........
|
