|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 355 Records
-
1995 (1) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... There is nothing worthwhile to show or suggest that any one came to the canteen to purchase the food or any article for consumption elsewhere. More to the point, the decision, cited above, cogently contains the answer against the respondents. 19.. So viewed the stage is reached to say omega. Accordingly, I say it and dispose of this petition with issuance of writs as under (a) The orders (annexures P/3, P/7, P/5, P/8, P/11 and P/14) as impugned, being infirm and invalid, passed by the respondents are consequently quashed. (b) The respondents are prohibited to treat the petitioner liable to pay tax on transactions in question of the canteen of Binod Mills as the same are in the nature of the service to the workers and are not capable of being categorised as sales within the meaning of the charging Act. 20.. The petition is thus, allowed in terms as noted above with no orders as to costs. Refund security deposit to the petitioner after requisite verification. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 378
... ...
... ... ..... al but was ancillary and connected with the trade which the petitioner was carrying on and was to be included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner. The second point, raised in the revision petition, is, thus, decided in favour of the revenue and against the petitioner. 5.. In the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is partly allowed and it is held that once the goods are entered in the registration certificate as the raw materials then the department cannot challenge later on the entry of these goods on the ground that the goods entered in the registration certificate are not the raw materials . The department, also, cannot charge any tax on these goods entered in the registration certificate as the raw materials nor can it impose any penalty thereon. But the sale of the tender forms can be said to be incidental or ancillary to the business of the petitioner and has to be included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner.... Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 377
... ...
... ... ..... through the facts of the case. We find that the findings of the Tribunal that the goods were despatched to the branches of the respondent-dealer in the usual course as stock transfers and not in pursuance of any contract of sale between the branches and the prospective customers is a pure finding of fact which is based on material on record. We do not find any infirmity in the same. In that view of the matter, the first two questions are to be answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer. So far as the third question is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Tribunal in directing the respondent-dealer to file an affidavit setting out the modus operandi of the transaction in question. We also do not find any provision of law which prohibits the Tribunal in doing so. Hence we answer the third question also in the negative and in favour of the dealer. This reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 376
... ...
... ... ..... ing officer to re-do the assessment. The petitioner is free to place materials which according to it are relevant in support of its claim before the assessing officer. It is brought to our notice that while intending to tax Lal Dantamanjan at the higher rate, transactions relating to other ayurvedic medicines dealt with by the petitioner have been subjected to tax at the higher rate under residuary item. This appears to have been done with the view that prior to April 21, 1993 all ayurvedic medicines fell outside the purview of entry 37. The matter shall be re-examined keeping in view the observations made above. To avoid unnecessary delay, the petitioner is directed to appear before the assessing officer on February 24, 1995, without any further notice so that a date of hearing can be fixed by the assessing officer. He would do well to complete the assessments by the end of July, 1995. The writ applications are allowed. No costs. P.C. NAIK, J.-I agree. Applications allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 375
... ...
... ... ..... . In the present case, the law applicable required revised return to be filed within the prescribed time and it was filed after a lapse of 4 years. Section 17(3) could not have any application to the present case in relation to the revised return, since in the eyes of law, there was no revised return. The assessing officer did not attempt to impose penalty on account of belated filing of original return. 7.. The question of law has not been correctly framed by the Appellate Tribunal. The correct question would be Whether delay in submission of revised return in violation of time prescribed by the rule would entail levy of penalty under section 17(3) of the Act? 8.. The question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. 9. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Tribunal. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 374
... ...
... ... ..... vide annexure 2, disposed of the writ petition fixing instalments, to be paid by the petitioner for discharging his liability of payment of sales tax surcharge . He has practically conceded that there is a reasonable cause in favour of the petitioner in making delayed payment of sales tax surcharge in instalments, as has been held by one of the members. 18.. Having heard both the parties, we also hold that there is a reasonable cause in favour of the petitioner for making delayed payment of sales tax surcharge by way of instalments. The decision given by the Member of the Tribunal is upheld. Thereby the impugned order as contained in annexures 5 and 6 to the respective writ petitions and the revision application as dismissed by the Chairman of the Tribunal, as contained in annexure 7 to the respective writ petitions, are quashed. 19.. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. K. VENKATASWAMI, C.J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 373
... ...
... ... ..... attention to the decision of this Court reported in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. O.A. Abdul Samak Sahib Sons 1984 57 STC 68 S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12889 of 1984 wherein this Court has held as follows Where the assessing authority not only rejected the return filed by the assessee as incorrect and incomplete but also rejected the accounts of the assessee and proceeded to make a best judgment assessment not on the basis of the book entries, that the assessment could not be said to have been made under section 12(4) of the Act, and the penalty under section 12(5) of the Act could not be justified. Against the above cited decision, the Supreme Court rejected the S.L.P filed as can be seen from 1991 83 STC Frsc 18, Sl. No. 63. In view of the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty levied under section 12(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 372
... ...
... ... ..... Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 10.. So far as the penalty is concerned the assessing officer has levied penalty even for the estimated purchase and sales suppression. If there is actual suppression, penalty can be levied. On the basis of the stock variation alone, penalty cannot be levied. It was pointed out that though the purchase of four tonnes of brass scraps was not accounted for in the beginning, but subsequently, the assessee accounted for the same. Since the suppression was not established clearly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that penalty is not exigible. The reasons given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for cancelling the penalty which were accepted by the Tribunal appears to be in order. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty. Accordingly, both the revisions filed by the department are dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 371
... ...
... ... ..... cases also, we hold that the sales turnover, on the peas and peas-dhall would not fall under item 6-A(iv) of the Second Schedule, but would fall under item 80 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the assessees in these tax cases are liable to pay surcharge, additional surcharge and additional sales tax on the sales turnover of peas and peas-dhall. In so far as the sales turnover on chick-peas is concerned, that would fall under item 6-A(iv) of the Second Schedule and not under 80(b) of the First Schedule and hence the sales turnover of chick-peas cannot be taxed more than 4 per cent. Therefore, surcharge, additional surcharge and additional sales tax cannot be levied on the sales turnover of chick-peas. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal stands set aside and the order passed by the first appellate authority stands confirmed and the sales tax revisions filed by the Revenue are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 370
... ...
... ... ..... nt authority. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on that account. When admittedly there has been no collection of the tax by the petitioner in sequence of the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, how can he be directed to pay the amount for the given period. In one of the cases, i.e., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1790 of 1993 the cinema hall remained closed since the curfew was imposed by the administration. A citizen cannot be made to suffer on account of the compliance with the lawful orders. It would amount to realize an amount from the petitioner for the period for which the cinema hall remained closed for the last show. Order dated January 5, 1993, annexure 6, is quashed. 17.. In view of what has been said above the writ petition succeeds and the petitioner is allowed the benefit in respect of the period in question. 18.. As a result all the writ petitions are consequently allowed in the same terms. 19.. No order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 369
... ...
... ... ..... s. 1 to 3. In reply to paragraphs 30 and 31 it is stated that paras 30 and 31 of the writ petition are admitted. We have gone through the written statement and we are surprised that the responsible officer subscribes to this type of written statement which is filed in the High Court. If this is the state of working in the office of the Sales Tax Tribunal we have no manner of doubt in accepting the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal has not considered various documents produced on record. We are totally unsatisfied with the manner in which the affidavit-in-reply is filed by Mr. J.S. Dhankar. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal of the stay application in accordance with law. We hope that the Tribunal will dispose of the stay application after hearing the parties on merits within four weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Writ petition allowed accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 368
... ...
... ... ..... nder section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. Learned counsel pointed out that the revised return was filed only after the defect was pointed out by the assessing officer. Therefore, since the assessee filed a return with incorrect particulars, penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act is warranted. 3.. On the other hand none was present on behalf of the respondent/assessee. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and perused the records carefully. The materials on records would go to show that the assessee filed revised return before completing the assessment by the assessing officer. In such a case consistent view was taken by this Court in holding that penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act is not exigible. Considering the abovesaid view taken by this Court, consistently, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 367
... ...
... ... ..... over of Rs. 38,500 in A-1 return. The assessee explained that the investigation of accounts did not indicate any omission of purchase or sale or any other transaction, and therefore, it was submitted that the levy of penalty is not warranted. Generally if the assessee files a revised return and pays tax on the turnover, which was not disclosed before completing the assessment, the Tribunal used to delete the penalty levied under section 12(5) of the Act. But in the present case, there was no evidence on record to show that any revised return was filed or any tax due on the turnover which was not disclosed was paid, before completing the assessment. In such circumstances, the penalty levied by the authorities below, under section 12(5) of the Act cannot be said to be not justified. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and restore the penalty levied under section 12(5) of the Act. In that view of the matter, this tax case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 366
... ...
... ... ..... In a case where the assessee filed revised return before completing the assessment it cannot be said that the original return filed by the assessee is defective and hence penalty is exigible. In T.C. No. 771 of 1983 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Lucky Rasi Radio House, Periyakulam) by an order dated January 2, 1995 this Court held that when the assessee filed revised return before the completion of the assessment and the tax due thereon was paid, then no penalty is exigible under section 12(5) of the Act. According to the facts arising in the present case, the revised return was filed before the completion of the assessment and the tax due on the revised return was also paid in time. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that no penalty is exigible in the present case. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty is in order. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 4.. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 365
... ...
... ... ..... le disentitled the claim of the petitioners. Such an interpretation cannot be given to these provisions. We having held the petitioner having complied with all the conditions required for registration on the date of the first sale itself which he has mentioned in his application dated March 2, 1990, merely the delay in the date of passing the order cannot disentitle petitioner s claim for exemption from the date of first sale. We hold requirement of permanent registration under the aforesaid provision and notification dated January 29, 1985 is directory in nature. Hence, we direct respondent No. 2 to modify the eligibility certificate dated March 24, 1993 of the petitioner and grant exemption for the period of four years with effect from March 24, 1990. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed with costs. Certified copy of this judgment be issued to the counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within ten days. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 364
... ...
... ... ..... mil Nadu v. Vijayakumar Slate Works by an order dated March 13, 1980, this Court held that the purchase turnover of the wood was not liable for tax under section 7-A of the Act since the wood purchased was merely made into frames in which slates were inserted and the frames themselves, therefore, cannot be said to have been consumed in the manufacture of other goods. See State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. 1981 47 STC 30 (Mad.) . Considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the decisions cited supra, we hold that the Joint Commissioner was not correct in directing the assessing officer to make assessment under section 7-A of the Act on the purchase turnover of wood of Rs. 79,756. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and restore the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), on this aspect. 7.. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 363
... ...
... ... ..... ns referred to us as follows Question No. 1 In the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The rayon tyre cord fabrics sold by the assessee does not fall under entry 4 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act. It is therefore not exempt from levy of tax. Question No. 2 In the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 3 In the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 4 In the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. On a correct interpretation of the notification dated April 30, 1975, issued under rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules read with section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that no duty was leviable or levied on rayon tyre cord fabrics under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. In the facts and circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in favour of the Revenue.
-
1995 (1) TMI 362
... ...
... ... ..... endment, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, sales of machinery effected even after the closure of a business would fall within the definition of sale of goods by a dealer in the course of business. We asked the learned counsel for the Revenue whether the Legislature having given retrospective effect to the said definition specifically from July 1, 1981, it was open to the Revenue to contend that the amended definition should be applied even to transactions of sales of machinery effected prior to that date. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the Revenue, however, was fair enough to submit that even if it were possible to contend so in view of the Legislature itself having fixed a cut-off date for the application of amended definition it would not be just and fair on their part to raise the above contention. 3.. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 361
... ...
... ... ..... . Anamika at Madras. In the bills it is shown that tax at 9 per cent was collected. If this information was brought to the notice of the department, that would be sufficient for the assessee to establish his case. Thereafter, it is for the department to establish the sale. This, obviously, appears to have not been done. When the tax on the goods were paid once by Domestic Fan Engineering (P) Ltd., it is not necessary for the assessee to pay the tax once again. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal restoring the assessment made by the assessing officer with regard to the levy of tax on the sale turnover of Badal fans appears to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect is set aside. 10.. In the result, the revision filed by the assessee stands allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 360
... ...
... ... ..... process. When the issues raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. In view of the aforesaid position of facts and law I find that the order, annexure P8, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly I find it improper to go into the merits of the matter. Instead I direct the concerning authority to hear the petitioner in this regard and pass appropriate orders with reasons by February 28, 1995. Till fresh order, the interim order passed by this Court earlier shall remain operative. This petition is thus disposed of finally in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of.
........
|
