|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 228 Records
-
1994 (8) TMI 281 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they had purchased industrial alcohol the sales tax amount levied on the industrial alcohol for the period from March 24, 1990 to October 21, 1991, which was payable by them, but for the interim order passed by this Court on March 5, 1990. The petitioners are directed to pay and reimburse the respondents the amount of sales tax for the said period on or before December 31, 1994. Special Civil Application No. 1655 of 1990 In the result, this petition is rejected. Rule discharged with costs. The members of the first petitioner-association are directed to pay and reimburse the respondents from whom they had purchased industrial alcohol, the sales tax amount levied on the industrial alcohol for the period from March 24, 1990 to October 21, 1991, which was payable by them, but for the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioners are directed to pay and reimburse the respondents the amount of sales tax for the said period on or before December 31, 1994. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 280 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4.. Learned counsel submits, in view of the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Officer v. Ragam Plastics 1990 77 STC 313, the enhanced rate of tax is not liable to be levied in the case of the petitioner. Of course, this contention is liable to be examined by the appellate authority in the appeals. Since the petitioner has got a prima facie case I feel that the collection of tax in the case of the petitioner can be deferred till the disposal of the appeals. Therefore, I direct the respondent not to initiate steps for recovery of tax amount against the petitioner-company pursuant to exhibits P6 and P7 revised assessments till the appeals are disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as directed above. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam, for necessary action. The O.P. is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 279 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... established that the goods were handed over to the petitioner for transport by M/s. Jamuna Enterprises, Delhi. In view of the above discussion, I find that it was a patent case of the misuse of the power of seizure and levy of penalty. This writ petition, therefore, has to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated September 30, 1992, the first appellate order dated February 4, 1993 and the order dated August 19, 1993, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 303 of 1993 are hereby quashed. The petitioner will get its costs of this writ petition from respondent No. 2 which are assessed at Rs. 2,500. The respondent No. 2 is directed to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 89,200 deposited by it as security within 15 days of the date the petitioner produces before him a certified copy of this order with simple interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of deposit to the date of refund. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 278 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... place in Durg and the sale was of ascertained goods. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the transport of the goods from Durg to outside was by or at the risk of the petitioner. The transport was by the purchasers themselves who instead of dealing with the goods in Durg, chose to deal with them outside. Title in the goods also passed to such dealers within the local area of Durg. These circumstances show that the case falls within the third category described in paragraph 2 of the judgment in IOC s case AIR 1993 SC 844, i.e., entry for sale by the assessee inside the local area and after completion of sale, vendee took those products outside the local area limits for sale, use or consumption and as such, entry tax would be payable. We, therefore, reject the contentions of the petitioner that entry tax is not payable. 16.. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 277 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctorily answer the defects on factual aspects mentioned above. 5.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question, namely, refrigerators are lying on the roadside and, therefore, they must be released on the petitioner furnishing security in any one of the modes contemplated in the Act and the Rules. For this course, the learned Advocate-General has no serious objection. However, learned Advocate-General wanted that the authorities must be given liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 6.. In the result, the orders impugned in this writ petition (annexure 2) are quashed. The concerned authority is directed to release the goods in question on the petitioner furnishing security in any one of the modes contemplated in the Act and the Rules without delay. The authorities are at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 276 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cle to another, the Commissioner shall give the assessee to show cause against the same, but, if we do not read the principle of giving an opportunity to show cause against such transfer by the assessee, the said rule would be arbitrary and discriminatory and hit by article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the same cannot be sustained. It is unfortunate that the assessment proceedings for the year 1984-85 remained under suspension due to an interim order passed by this Court. Such type of writ petition should be disposed of at the initial stage. In view of what we have indicated hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated September 13, 1985 (annexure C.A. 1) passed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Lucknow, is issued. However, it will be open for the Commissioner to transfer this case after giving notice to any other district within his range after giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 275 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... date of first sale as taken place in the present case, is not later than six months from the date of starting production. The Divisional Level Committee has erred in excluding the cost of machinery incurred by the petitioner on March 24, 1987. The cost of machinery incurred by the petitioner on March 24, 1987 has to be included for the purposes of determining the period of exemption specified in column 3 of the notification aforestated. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated September 30, 1989, annexure 7 to the writ petition, is quashed. The Divisional Level Committee constituted under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act through its Convenor, Joint Director of Industries, Meerut, is directed to reconsider the review application in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 274 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reason has been indicated in the order. We are of the view that the order is vitiated for the reason that it is not a speaking order, hence it deserves to be quashed. In view of what we have indicated herein above, the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated May 5, 1988 contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition is issued. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Chairman, Noida, to consider the review application of the petitioner afresh on merit and pass a speaking order indicating reasons, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his argument, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, is issued. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 273 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he materials placed before us, we are of the view that in these cases the power under rule 94 of the Rules has been exercised by the concerned officers on suspicion and not because they reasonably apprehended that there was likelihood of evasion of tax. The action of the check-post officers in collecting tax from the petitioners in respect of the transactions which are the subject-matter of these petitions must be regarded as unauthorised and illegal. We, therefore, allow all these petitions and declare the impugned action of the check-post officers as illegal. However, instead of ordering refund of the amounts which were thus unauthorisedly collected by the check-post officers, we direct that the Sales Tax Officers, while making regular assessment for the relevant assessment years, shall give credit of those amounts to the respective petitioners. 10.. These petitions are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Petitions allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 272 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... acturers and footwear made on machines. 15.. As stated above, the aforesaid decision has no bearing on the controversy involved in this petition since in the aforesaid case there was no discrimination and the order of the High Court was set aside as it was putting a wrong interpretation. 16. For the reasons set out above, we are of the opinion that the words appearing in clause 5 in the State are hit by article 301 of the Constitution of India and we declare that part of the notification exhibit 3 unconstitutional. In view of this the respective assessment orders (exhibits 13 to 15) and demand notices issued by the non-petitioners exhibits 16 to 18 are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to decide it afresh and give effect to the order of this Court granting exemption if the petitioner fulfils the other conditions specified in exhibit 3. 17.. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the above observations. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 271 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (D.B. Special Appeal No. 418/91) 24. State v. Hotel Hilton Pvt. Ltd. (D.B. Special Appeal No. 448/91) 25. State v. Agra Sweet Home (D.B. Special Appeal No. 535/92) 26. State v. Maharaja Sri Ummed Mills Ltd. (D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 437/93) 27. State v. Lovely Sweet House (D.B. Special Appeal No. 16/92) 28. State v. Samosa House (D.B. Special Appeal No. 567/93) 29. State v. Rameshwar Lodge (D.B. Special Appeal No. 568/93) 30. State v. Lovely Sweet House (D.B. Special Appeal No. 569/93) 31. State v. Sri Narayan Niwas-Palace (D.B. Special Appeal No. 570/93) 32. State v. Maharaja Ummed Mills (D.B. Special Appeal No. 607/93) 33. State v. Govind Hotel (D.B. Special Appeal No. 739/93) 34. State v. Bombay Boarding Lodge (D.B. Special Appeal No. 68/94) 35. State v. Milkh Raj (D.B. Special Appeal No. 117/94) 36. State v. Mahavir Lodge (D.B. Special Appeal No. 125/94) 37. State v. Rameshwar Lodge (D.B. Special Appeal No. 151/94) 38. State v. Mahavir Lodge (D.B. Special Appeal No. 343/94).
-
1994 (8) TMI 270 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the correctness of the contentions which are to be put forth before the assessing authority, we need not consider the relevancy and applicability of the aforesaid decision also, as it is open to the petitioner/appellant to rely upon the same before the assessing authority. In the event the assessing authority does not agree with the contentions of the dealer, it would be open to it to go up in appeal and further appeal and then, approach this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed as premature or at any rate, the court could have declined to exercise the jurisdiction and declined to consider the contentions on merits. We, accordingly, after hearing both sides, set aside the findings recorded by the learned single Judge and keep them open, reserving liberty to the appellant to urge the same before the assessing authority. 5.. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Writ appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aim of the petitioners that the amendment should have been made effective from October 1, 1986, cannot be accepted because the Legislature must have taken into consideration that returns must have been filed on the basis of the provisions existing prior to amendment, assessment proceedings must have been completed and tax must have been recovered. The Legislature felt it proper not to give retrospective effect and open the proceedings which are concluded. In the field of taxation, many complex factors are involved and it is necessary for the Legislature to make a reasonably good job. It would not be appropriate to condemn the amendment which gives relief from double taxation only because it is available from the date the amending Act came into force and not from earlier date. In our judgment, challenge to the legislation is without any merit and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10.. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (8) TMI 268 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not already been subjected to tax under the State law. 6.. Question No. 2 is based on the contention that mahul leaves purchased by the assessee had to be dried and bundled before selling the same in the course of inter-State trade and this involved a manufacturing process. On the basis of the amended definition of the expression manufacture in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Purshottamdas Somabhai 1980 13 VKN 1 has held that a similar process with reference to tendu leaves is not a manufacturing process. We are of the opinion that the decision would apply to mahul leaves also. Therefore, there was no manufacturing process involved in this case. 7.. We answer both the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8.. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court will be transmitted to the Board of Revenue. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1994 (8) TMI 267 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a detenu or anyone on his behalf is entitled to challenge an order of detention without the detenu submitting or surrendering to it and, if so, what will be the nature, scope and extent of such challenge?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is undoubtedly true that an unusual delay in execution of an order of detention if not satisfactorily explained, may persuade the court to draw such an inference. There is, however, no scope for drawing such an inference in this case as the delay here has been occasioned not by any omission or commission on the part of the detaining authority. On the contrary, it is the appellant who has delayed the execution by first moving the Bombay High Court and then this Court. That apart, the respondents have asserted that though this Court had not passed any interim order against execution of the order, it could not be served as the appellant was absconding
-
1994 (8) TMI 266 - ITAT AMRITAR
... ...
... ... ..... es. No material on record is available to show that the family arrangement was not arrived at bona fide. As per the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the court was required to take a liberal and broad view of the validity of the family arrangement and give assent to it, rather than avoid it. This is what exactly the civil court did by decreeing the suit. However, the Revenue authorities doubted such an arrangement and rejected the claim. The rejection of the claim, in the circumstances of the case, in my view, is based upon frivolous and untenable grounds and is totally unjustified. After the decree of the civil court, no further question is required to be examined. The Assessing Officer was required to record a finding affirming the partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I agree with the order proposed by the learned Judicial Member. The appeal should now go back to the regular Bench for disposal, in accordance with law.
-
1994 (8) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... t for the offence committed under the Income-tax Act. In view of the series of decisions of this court, the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the prosecution against the company is not maintainable, is not tenable. Even though the company is a juristic person, the affairs of which are being managed by the partners or other responsible persons, the company or firm cannot escape from the punishment when the offence has been committed in the name of the firm or company itself. I agree with the consistent view of this court and, therefore, the second contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the prosecution against the first accused firm also falls to the ground. As both points urged by learned counsel for the revision petitioners have been rejected, this revision deserves dismissal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
-
1994 (8) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT
Allowability of investment allowance on machinery & plant used in construction of immovables - Whether the word "construction" used in section 32A includes the construction of a dam, building, bridge and road
-
1994 (8) TMI 263 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up - Power of Court to assess damage against delinquent director, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... nd he has been negligent in not taking timely action as a director. It is not necessary for fixing the liability that the director should be a shareholder or should actually participate in the management. The liability has been created under section 543 and the respondent has become liable to pay the amount which has become time-barred on account of his misconduct by way of breach of duty which falls within the category of misfeasance and in exercise of the powers under section 543 of the Companies Act, I hereby direct that the respondent Vishnu Kumar Pradhan shall also be liable jointly and severally along with Vishwambhar Dayal Pansari, Deokinandan Garg and Shankarlal Chaturvedi for which order has already been passed. The Additional Registrar of this Court is directed to execute the decree. Any action if taken against Babulal Gupta would be in addition to the order which is being passed. 7. Consequently, the company miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (8) TMI 262 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... e-holder is at liberty to get any property attached for recovery of the decretal amount. This application is disposed of as indicated above. 3. I find force in the objections taken by the respondents. The decree passed against Bareja Knipping Fasteners Ltd., cannot be satisfied by attachment and sale of properties belonging to other limited companies even if it is assumed that they are being managed by the same group of directors. Other companies are different and distinct juristic personalities with different sets of shareholders against the assets of judgment-debtor Nos. 2 to 4 which were disclosed by them in their petition No. 14/L of 1987. No prayer has been made for attachment and sale of those assets. This petition, therefore, has to be dismissed. It would, however, be open to the decree-holders to get the decree executed in any other mode or by claiming the properties which are owned by the original judgment-debtors. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
........
|
