|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 264 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 272
... ...
... ... ..... or statement in the bill, invoice or cash memo a selling dealer may be subjected to penalty under sub-section (5) but the provisions of the Act do not absolve the purchasing dealer of his liability for payment of entry tax in relation to such goods which are brought into a local area and on which no entry tax is found to have been paid by the selling dealer. 6.. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the reference as under In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was not justified in holding that the entry tax is not leviable on the purchases of goods enumerated in Schedule II of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976, from a registered dealer in respect of whom such goods are local goods when purchased by another dealer of another local area. The reference is thus answered against the assessee and in favour of the department. 7.. In the circumstances, parties should bear their own costs, as the assessee is not represented in this Court. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1994 (10) TMI 271
... ...
... ... ..... ction under article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will not entertain a writ petition, if an effective statutory remedy of appeal is available. But when the authority passing the impugned order has violated the principles of natural justice and where the order is patently lacking in jurisdiction, the availability of alternative remedy is not treated as a bar, for exercise of jurisdiction under article 226. From the above discussion it follows that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the impugned order and allow the writ petition with costs. The seized goods shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. We however, make it clear that this order does not preclude the authorities from taking such action against the petitioner as is available to them in law, for carrying on the business without obtaining the registration certificate as per sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 270
... ...
... ... ..... ing on the order or proceeding in question. This sub-section has the application only (i) when stay of further proceedings is granted by the High Court or the Supreme Court in an appeal or other proceeding or (ii) when an appeal or other proceeding involving a similar question of law is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court. None of the situations apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, even sub-section (6) of section 20 cannot be called in aid to save the limitation, as stay of further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice was not granted by the High Court. As none of the provisions, saving the limitation is applicable, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is clearly barred by limitation. This is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. We, therefore, find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. There are no merits in the revision and accordingly the tax revision case is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 269
Whether appellants have a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor?
Whether the State can prevent the petitioners from carrying on with the business of liquor as apart from trade, during the unexpired period of the licences?
Held that:- SLP dismissed. The word 'trade' may include all the connotations of the word 'business'. As in Article 19(1)(g) of our Constitution, the words 'trade' and 'business' are used synonymously. Hence, we reject the contention and hold that after the taking-over of the trade, viz., the activity of buying and selling liquor, no activity was left with the petitioners to carry on under the licence held by them.
-
1994 (10) TMI 268
Method of accounting - Rejection of - Assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80 - Assessee-firm was engaged in business of retail sale of country liquor - Sales of assessee were not vouched and quantitative tallies could not be made - Whether, since there was direct nexus between licence fee and expected sales, licence fee could be made basis for estimating sales and, therefore, lower authorities were justified in estimating sales and profit
-
1994 (10) TMI 267
... ...
... ... ..... he appellants had, in fact, produced certain quotations of manufacturers/suppliers which apparently had satisfied the assessing authorities as regards value, but even there the opinion expressed by the Assistant Collector, on examination, was that the similar imported LNBs are being priced at 30 and 40 U.S. . Thus, when there is satisfactory evidence of contemporaneous import as in this case of identical goods from same manufacturer at higher price, the authorities are justified in disregarding the value declared by the appellants to be a transaction value and to determine the assessable value on the basis of the higher price of contemporaneous imports. There is thus no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector regarding determination of assessable value in this case. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the level of redemption fine, the personal penalty, is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (10) TMI 266
Winding up - Procedure for filing petition ... ... ... ... ..... s so advised and if it is so aggrieved seeking revocation of the admission of the company petition and for any other relief it may choose. If such an application is filed, the same will be disposed of, by the company court, on its own merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, but there shall be no order as to costs. 19. If the creditors again seek the advertisement of the admission of the company petition, it is open to them to file such an application and the same will be disposed of on the merits in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and this judgment shall not be taken as pronouncing in any manner on the merits of the rival contentions in the case. Our judgment relates to the procedure adopted in directing the advertisement of the admission of the company petition simultaneously with the admission of the company petition only.
-
1994 (10) TMI 262
Whether the Bench which decided Pine Chemicals [1992 (1) TMI 305 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is right in holding that the benefit of the said sub-section is available even where the goods are exempted with reference to industrial unit and for a specified period, viz., period of five years from the date the relevant unit goes into production?
Whether an exemption of the nature granted under Government Order No. 159 dated March 26, 1971, is an exemption available "only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions" within the meaning of the Explanation to section 8(2-A), as contended by the State or is it a case where the goods are exempt from the tax "generally" within the meaning of section 8(2-A), as contended by the respondents-dealers?
Held that:- We may reiterate that we have not allowed the learned counsel for the review petitioners to question the correctness of the first three points decided in the judgment under review. We are told that section 8-B of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act permits refund of sales tax only in cases where the dealer has not collected the same and that the question whether the dealers herein did or did not collect the tax in respect of transactions concerned herein has been left open by this Court though a finding against the dealer was recorded by the High Court. We are also told that proceedings for refund are now pending where the State has taken the defence based on section 8-B of the State enactment. We need express no opinion in that behalf.
Inasmuch as the judgment in Pine Chemicals [supra] is now being set aside in so far as the interpretation of section 8(2-A) is concerned and because the only issue involved in Civil Appeals was the one relating to the meaning and applicability of the said sub-section, these review petitions are liable to be allowed
-
1994 (10) TMI 259
Whether the petitioner - sugar mills is liable to pay the purchase tax on the sugarcane purchased by it from the growers of sugarcane?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. To determine what precisely is exempted under section 6, one must have regard to the language of section 6. Section 6, as pointed out hereinbefore, only exempts the sale of the goods in Schedule B from tax thereon. There are no words in section 6 which serve to exempt the purchase of such goods also from tax. It, therefore, follows that when section 4 speaks of "every dealer except one who is dealing exclusively in goods declared tax-free under section 6", the exception refers to a dealer who is engaged exclusively in the sale of goods mentioned in section 6 read with Schedule B and not to any other dealer.
-
1994 (10) TMI 250
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... all the liabilities and duties of the transferor-companies shall also become the liabilities and duties of the transferee-company and the transferor-companies shall stand dissolved, without winding up, in view of the scheme of amalgam-ation as per Annexure C being sanctioned. 13. The petitioners are directed to file the copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies within a period of thirty days and the Registrar of Companies shall treat the transferor-companies as dissolved, with effect from 1 -4-1993. It is also clarified that any person interested shall be entitled to apply to this Court for any appropriate direction that may be necessary. 14. The petitioner shall bear the cost of respective petitions and shall also pay the fees of the learned additional standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government, which is quantified at Rs. 3,000 in each of these three petitions. 15. All these three petitions would stand disposed of accordingly. SCL q OCTOBER, 1997
-
1994 (10) TMI 249
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... ng put by the Corporation of any sort whatsoever, and the Corporation shall pay the amount demanded by the official liquidator on account of the workmen s share of such realisation within 15 days from the date of making of such demand, failing which the Corporation shall be liable to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum from the date of realisation of the security. However, if any dispute is raised about the workmen s proportion, it will be determined first by the learned company judge on an appropriate application being made in this regard. The future realisation of any security shall also be made only after notice to the official liquidator so that there may not be any delay or obstruction in enforcement of the workmen s charges. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. We highly appreciate the assistance rendered by learned counsel Mr. S.N. Soparkar, who appeared as amicus curiae, and argued the case on behalf of the official liquidator.
-
1994 (10) TMI 237
Consumer - Definition of ... ... ... ... ..... ity. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of National Commission in Usha Rectifier Corpn. Ltd. v. Dr. K. Dattatreya Rao R.P. No. 208 of 1993, dated 8-10-1993 herein the National Commission held that, between the shareholder and the company there is absolutely no arrangement of hiring or availing of service for consideration. In case of delay in sending convertible debentures and issuing convertible debentures if the complainant had applied, there is no element of hiring of service involved in the issue of convertible debentures to the shareholders of a company. In view of the aforesaid decision of the National Commission it has to be held that the complainant is a consumer and there is no element of hiring of service for consideration of the Company. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the orders of the District Forum are set aside and the orders of awarding costs of Rs. 300 by the District Forum shall stand. No order as to costs in these appeals.
-
1994 (10) TMI 236
Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... all the liabilities and duties of the transferor companies shall also become the liabilities and duties of the transferee-company and the transferor companies shall stand dissolved, without winding up, in view of the scheme of amalgamation as per annexure C being sanctioned. The petitioners are directed to file the copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies within a period of thirty days and the Registrar of Companies shall treat the transferor companies as dissolved with effect from April 1, 1993. It is also clarified that any person interested shall be entitled to apply to this court for any appropriate direction that may be necessary. The petitioner shall bear the costs of respective petitions and shall also pay the fees of the learned additional standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government, which is quantified at Rs. 3,000 (rupees three thousand only) in each of these three petitions. All these three petitions would stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (10) TMI 235
Consumer - Definition of ... ... ... ... ..... from 18-6-1993. But the Supreme Court of India rendered its decision on 28-5-1994 subsequent to the amendment. Moreover the amendment does not in any way affect the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision. As it also observed that the complainanant in that case could not be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. Even after the amendment, clause (iii) of section 2(c) reads that there must be hiring of services or availing of the services or agreement to hire or avail the services. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the complainant availed the services of the company for any consideration. Hence following the decision of the Supreme Court of India, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he could not be called as a consumer in the eyes of law. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum set aside. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
-
1994 (10) TMI 234
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... . Cas.1069 (Kar.) and T. Srinivasa v. Flemming (India) Apotheke Private Limited 1990 68 Comp. Cas.506 (Kar.) submitted rightly that unless the debt alleged to be due is clear and free from doubt, it cannot reasonably be said that there is negligence, failure or inability to pay the debt and, therefore, the discretionary order of winding up which order if made would result in sounding the death-knell of a company, should not be made. The evidence placed before the court is not such as would warrant a finding that there is a debt owing to the petitioner which is unimpeachable and that the respondent has failed and neglected to pay a debt due to the petitioner. It cannot therefore be said that the company is unable to pay its debts. This company petition for winding up the respondent-company is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to agitate its claim before the civil court. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 211
Amalgamation of companies, Temporary injunction - Power to grant of, Merger, amalgamation and takeover, Public interest - Meaning of
-
1994 (10) TMI 210
Registration fees was levied by SEBI on brokers ... ... ... ... ..... ommittee will consider the total impact of the fees to be levied and whether the fees so payable by stock brokers should be a one-time fees or annual fees and what should be the quantum of the fees either on one-time or annual basis. The Committee will examine all other relevant considerations and may make suitable suggestion. The Committee is requested to submit the report by end of February 1995. The Committee is requested to furnish copies of the report to the parties of the proceedings. 4. The fees and expenses of the Committee will be shared equally by the members of the BSE Brokers Forum and SEBI. Space and other facilities may be provided to the Committee by Bombay Stock Exchange. The counsel for the Bombay Stock Exchange has agreed to provide such facilities. 5. The petition to come up for hearing before the Bench hearing writ petitions in the week commencing from 6-3-1994. Writ Petition Nos. 1146, 1240, 1267 and 1293, all of 1993 to be heard along with this petition.
-
1994 (10) TMI 194
Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... s. 5,000/ and the balance amount of duty demanded from the appellants/applicants herein from the security of Rs. 15,000/- furnished by the applicants to be adjusted. He pleaded that now in view of the Tribunal rsquo s findings, the adjustment should also be to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- in all towards fine and penalty instead of Rs. 10,000/- and the duty as ordered by the adjudicating authority. 8. emsp Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar to re-determine the duty in terms of the Tribunal rsquo s Order dated 22nd February, 1994 read with this order and adjust the penalty and fine of Rs.2,000/- in all and the duty that may be so re-determined by him. These proceedings should be finalised by the Collector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. On finalisation thereof, the balance amount of security, if any, and the bond should be refunded and discharged forthwith.
-
1994 (10) TMI 193
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... dent did not pay Central Excise duty on the said intermediate goods, nor observed Central Excise formalities and also did not furnish the value of said intermediate goods consumed by the respondent. As against this allegation in the show cause notice the appellant in their reply referred to show cause notice and submitted that ldquo when we submitted the details in March, 1993 your Calcutta, 7 division Office also did not raise this question and they assessed the goods on the details furnished by them. rdquo On persual of the order passed by the lower authorities we find that this contention of the appellant is not rebutted therefore on the question of limitation also, we find that the allegation of suppression is not proved. Hence the demand for a period beyond 6 months is not maintainable. Further, we find that even on merits the case is in favour of the respondents. 9. emsp Having regard to the above findings, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal accordingly.
-
1994 (10) TMI 190
Modvat - Gate pass need not be in the name of the unit availing Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ack to the authorities for considering those evidences for allowing modvat credit if the Department is satisfied that the goods covered by the Gate Passes have passed through the subsequent stages and modvat credit was not taken by any one in the chain of the transaction. In this case, I find that even the endoresements are undated and the particulars of sale invoices are not given. In one case it is also claimed to have been transferred in transit. The matter is not clear even for proper investigation for acceptance of the evidences. Moreover, the credit could be availed of only in respect of documents such as GPs, AR. I and such other documents prescribed by the Board. When the appellants have not received the goods under the documents prescribed by the Board, and the documents presented before me also could not facilitate any enquiry which could be done at this stage, I am not inclined to adopt the approach in the case of S.B.S. Organics P. Ltd., hence I reject the appeal.
........
|
