|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 374 Records
-
1994 (11) TMI 391
... ...
... ... ..... ng out the sales tax. The argument is not only self-defeating, but patently erroneous. The toll tax is an entirely and altogether different item of taxation than the General Sales Tax Act. The toll tax is a levy for import or export of goods from toll post, chargeable under the levy of Tolls Act and it has nothing in common with the levy of sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, which is a tax on sale of goods, totally unconnected with the levy of tolls. It cannot be said that the imposition of the toll tax could be or in fact was in lieu of the levy of sales tax. The argument is without any force and as such is rejected. On both the counts, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners have failed to establish or make out any grievance. The petitions have no merit and are dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Connected C.M.Ps. in all the petitions shall stand disposed of and interim directions shall stand vacated forthwith. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 390
... ...
... ... ..... hat the petitioners have not received any benefit of tax exemption in respect of branch transfers or consignment of goods. (6) The respondents are hereby directed to permit the petitioners to avail of the whole of tax exemption as available under entry 136 of the Schedule appended to the exemption notification referred to in the judgment subject to ceiling limit reaching Rs. 1,00,16,675 after deducting therefrom the tax exemption already availed of but without taking into consideration the transaction of branch transfer and consignment goods within the State or outside the State. The petitioner shall be bound to comply with all the lawful conditions prescribed by the exemption notification read with entry 136 of the Schedule as provided in the said entry itself. (7) The dispute regarding presumptive set-off formulated in questions Nos. (iv) and (v) of para 3 of the petition is kept open and is not adjudicated in this petition. (8) No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 389
... ...
... ... ..... ked if the assessee fails to return the sales tax and surcharge collected by its on the amounts given by way of rebate and cash discounts since such a collection was held to be legal by the Tribunal. Only if the collection of tax is illegal by the registered dealer in contravention of the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act, then alone section 22(2) would be attracted and penalty is exigible. Accordingly considering the facts arising in the present case, in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra , we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in directing the assessing officer to levy penalty under section 22(2) of the Act, if on verification the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that the assessee has not refunded the amount collected by way of sales tax and surcharge on the amount given by way of rebate and cash credit. Therefore, such direction given by the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 388
... ...
... ... ..... to giving an opportunity to the assessee to make out a new case. Having regard to the provisions of section 6-C of the Act, which is held to be declaratory of the position which was obtaining even before its insertion in the Act, the bottles will have to be taxed at the rate of the contents . In Circar Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1995 97 STC 40 a Division Bench of this Court, on similar facts, held that the price was a single price for the bottled beer and the amount of turnover relating to the bottles claimed as exemption related only to debit notes issued subsequently and that was only an artificial bifurcation of the price which the assessee had paid to the manufacturer while purchasing the goods and the price received while reselling to the retail dealers which is a single amount for the sale of the goods as bottled beer. For the above reasons, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow the tax revision case, but without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 387
... ...
... ... ..... fore call for any interference. 19.. So far as the rate of tax on jute hessian is concerned, the Tribunal s decision is based on the clarification issued by Government under section 59A. This section has been held to be unconstitutional by a Bench of this Court in Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1991 81 STC 313 1991 1 KLT 196 so that any clarification issued thereunder, even if it be in favour of the assessee, is also null and void. We are not therefore in a position to uphold the decision of the Tribunal made on the strength of a clarification under section 59A. The matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of this question on the merits. The tax revision case is therefore allowed and the case is remitted back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for consideration of the proper rate of tax applicable to jute hessian sold by the assessee during the year 1982-83. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 386
... ...
... ... ..... ition is not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. This observation is from Om Shiv Shakti Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1989 72 STC 437 (Raj) in which Assessing Authority v. Patiala Biscuits Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. 1977 39 STC 381 (SC) has been relied on.-Ed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after examining the legal position on the subject, as referred to above, I am consequently, of the opinion that the petitioner-company is entitled to the benefit of the Incentive Scheme, which is applicable to the petitioner-company in question with effect from July 8, 1988, i.e., the date of application. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above. It is further directed that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner-industry in terms of the assessment order dated May 27, 1992 or in pursuance of the demand notices dated January 4, 1990 (annexures 3 and 4 respectively). No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 385
... ...
... ... ..... (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Seth Manicklal Fomra) and AIR 1964 SC 1473 1964 52 ITR 538 (SC) (Incometax Officer v. Seghu Buchiah Setty). Therefore, when the first appellate authority for the first time remitted back the assessment only on two aspects it cannot be said that the entire assessment was set aside and remitted back for fresh assessment. When the assessment was completed in accordance with the appellate order only on particular points, it is not open to the assessee to agitate any other point, before the assessing officer which were not remanded. When the assessee is not aggrieved by the consequential order, the assessee cannot file an appeal against such an order and agitate grounds which were not taken in the prior proceedings. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the AAC dated October 29, 1984, stands restored. In that view of the matter, the revision filed by the State stands allowed. No costs.
-
1994 (11) TMI 384
... ...
... ... ..... ntury Dictionary, the Supreme Court has observed that a container is used in three different senses viz., (1) in a broad sense, (2) in a narrow sense, and (3) in a more limited sense. In a broad sense, it means a receptacle which contains and in that sense it includes a tray because it is a receptacle which contains articles. In the narrow sense, it means receptacle in which articles are covered and enclosed and transported. In a more limited sense, the meaning was given as an enclosure used in shipping or railway for transport of goods. Whether the expression is taken in the narrow sense or broad sense, for the purpose of the above entry, having regard to the context in which the expression is used, in our view, it includes iron trunk boxes because articles are placed in it which are covered or enclosed for the purpose of transportation. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision cases but without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 383
... ...
... ... ..... d has been used in the entries. The well accepted principle of statutory construction is that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate senses and that is based on the principle that words take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. Keeping in view the above principle, it would be useful to read here entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act. From a perusal of the entry 19, it appears to us that the word container is used here in a more broader sense rather than in a restricted sense as in the Central Excise Act. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to differ from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Chennupati Traders, Vijayawada (1989) 9 APSTJ 17. In the result we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision case. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 382
... ...
... ... ..... are also exempted under the abovesaid notification. So also, this Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in 1995 98 STC 167 (Mad.) supra (1991) 1 MTCR 197 in the case of C. Rathinam, Proprietor of J.K. Feed Trading Company v. State of Tamil Nadu wherein, while considering the exemption of sale turnover of cattle feed, this Court held that the cattle feed consisting of rice bran, wheat bran, dust of pulses and gram, cholam, ragi and salt are exempted from taxation under the Notification dated March 26, 1966 with effect from April 1, 1966. In view of the above cited decisions of this Court, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in granting exemption with regard to the sale turnover of cattle feed in the present case where the cattle feed is consisting of rice bran, molasses and salt. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect. 3.. In the result, this revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 381
... ...
... ... ..... before completing the assessment finally. By not disclosing the sale turnover of chemicals under right column in the return, revenue was not prejudiced in the matter of payment of tax on sale turnover of chemicals. As already State, the entire tax due on the sale turnover of chemicals, was paid by the assessee before completing the assessment. Taking all the these facts into consideration, we are of the opinion that the contention of the assessee that the sale turnover was wrongly mentioned under the column turnover exempted and it is due to a bona fide mistake, is acceptable. Accepting the reasons offered by the assessee for the mistake committed in filing incorrect returns, in the light of the decisions cited supra, we hold that penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act is not exigible. Accordingly, the penalty levied, by authorities below and confirmed by the Tribunal, is set aside and the revision filed by the assessee is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 380
... ...
... ... ..... r section 4-B simply because he has applied for grant of exemption under section 4-A or has actually been granted that exemption. Exemption under section 4-B will have to be granted if the dealer so insists because in the notifications, under section 4-B there is no such conditions. What may be possible for the Revenue is that it may revoke the eligibility certificate granted under section 4-A. In the present case, there is nothing in the orders of the authorities below to show that an eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act was actually granted to the dealer. The appellate orders merely state that the dealer has applied for exemption under section 4-A also. That could not be a reason for not granting the exemption and the Tribunal was right in directing that the exemption under section 4-B granted right from the date of the application. I, therefore, do not find any force in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... ance, that is the cost of the footwear being not more than Rs. 30 per pair. Thus the exemption is dependent on the act of the dealer in selling the footwear at a price of not more than Rs. 30 per pair. In other words, the exemption under the State Act is conditional and is available only in a special circumstances, when the sale price is less than Rs. 30 per pair. As the exemption is not general but subject to a specified condition, the benefit of the exemption cannot be extended to the turnover relating to such footwear under the CST Act having regard to the explanation of section 8(2A). For the reasons stated above, it will have to be held that the assessing authority is justified in issuing notice under section 9(3) of the CST Act holding that the exemption under section 8A notification is available only in regard to the turnover under the KST Act and not in regard to the CST Act. Consequently, this petition has to fail and it is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 378
... ...
... ... ..... he assessing authorities estimated the turnover at three times the average running stock. This assessment has been found to be reasonable by the Appellate Tribunal. It is not contended before us that the assessing authority committed an illegality in estimating the turnover at three times the average running stock. If that be the case the assessment so made is purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises for consideration. The finding arrived at by the assessing authorities has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is largely a question of fact. Therefore, we do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In view of what has been stated above after going through the records placed before us and on hearing counsel representing the petitioner, we dismiss the petition summarily under section 41(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 377
... ...
... ... ..... t the petitioner would keep accurate and up-to-date account of the goods received and delivered by it to the allottees. It is not understood as to how the petitioner would keep an accurate account when it was found transporting goods without any delivery note, weighment slip and challan. Keeping in view the facts of the case, as discussed above, it is established that the goods in these cases were being transported in utter disregard of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14-B of the Act which leads to an attempt to evade tax. The owner of the goods can transport goods for any purpose of trade. The only requirement of law is that the documents accompanying the goods should be corresponding to the nature of the trade. In the instant case, the corresponding documents were not accompanying the goods. Therefore, the imposition of penalties under section 14-B(7) of the Act is justified. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 376
... ...
... ... ..... hose affidavit is sought to be relied upon by the Assessing Authority should be permitted to be cross-examined by the affected party while in some other case it may not be necessary. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the dealer should have been allowed to cross-examine Shri Sikka. Since Shri Sikka was not allowed to be cross-examined, we hold that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard within the meaning of section 7(4) of the State Act. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Assessing Authority dated November 23, 1990 and the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated March 31, 1992 (annexures P9 and P12 with the writ petition) are set aside and the case is remanded to the Assessing Authority with a direction to permit the assessee to cross-examine Shri R.N. Sikka and then to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 375
... ...
... ... ..... t the earlier sales have been taxed. On facts in that case it was held that reopening of the assessment under section 16(2) of the Act was in order and penalty levied under section 16(2) of the Act is exigible. This decision was rendered on the facts arising in that case. But, on facts in the present case, the assessees have established that the groundnuts purchased by them from the sellers are genuine and the department has no evidence to show that the sellers are not in existence and the bills issued by them are bogus. Therefore the abovesaid decision will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied against all the assessees is sustainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct in holding that all the appeals are allowable and the enhancement petitions in all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. In the result, the revisions filed by the State are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 374
... ...
... ... ..... in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated January 13, 1993, annexure 5 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the said authority for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made above by us by means of a speaking order preferably within a period of 3 months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. Until disposal of the said review application further assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before the said authority within a period of two weeks from the date of issuance of certified copy. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 373
... ...
... ... ..... after an order was placed by the S.C.I. with the respective branches which delivered the goods and effected sales. This being the position, the test laid down above is not satisfied. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal holding that the withdrawal of exemption by the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. The expression withdrawal of exemption is somewhat inappropriate. Where the stocks were transferred from the head office to the branches otherwise than in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the turnover of such goods does not become exigible to tax under section 3(a) of the Central Act. It is only when the turnover relates to sale or purchase of goods during the course of inter-State trade or commerce that it would be taxable under the Central Act. In the result, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. The three tax revision cases are dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 372
... ...
... ... ..... rise that is the situation in the present case. The dealer-petitioner had received the goods from his principals for sale in its commission agency. This is a fact which had been admitted by the assessing officer as well as by the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Tribunal. Once it is accepted that the dealer is not the purchaser of the goods and they were entrusted to him by a third party for sale, no question of the transaction being deemed a first purchase would arise and there is no occasion for requiring the dealer to prove a thing which is accepted as correct by the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal s approach on the subject was, therefore, confused and misdirected and the order passed by it is erroneous. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order under revision, the Commissioner s second appeal before it is ordered to stand dismissed. The revisionist will get costs of this revision from the respondent. Petition allowed.
........
|
