|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 355 Records
-
1995 (1) TMI 339
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act in question. In this case also the words (after omitting the unnecessary words) are sale price of goods which have been purchased from a registered dealer . Section 2(r)(ii) reflects the principle of single point sales tax and reading the provision in consonance with this principle, it must follow that the registered dealer need not be the dealer from whom the assessee purchased the goods, but could be the dealer from whom the goods were originally purchased or were purchased at the first stage. The decision in Laxman Chhotelal s case (1979) 12 VKN 253 cannot be regarded as laying down good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Mulakh Raj Nand Lal s case 1982 50 STC 101. 7.. The question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8.. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Board of Revenue. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 338
... ...
... ... ..... cannot arise. In such a case, section 13 of the Act has no application. 7.. Our attention was drawn by the counsel for the Revenue to the decision of this Court in Shree Ram Steel Rolling Mills v. State of Maharashtra 1983 53 STC 202. On perusal of the same, we find that it has no application to the facts of the present case. The controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Raman and Co. 1994 93 STC 185 which has affirmed the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Raman and Co. 1974 33 STC 1. 8.. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that by the purchase of condemned and unserviceable ship the assessee had purchased scrap and not ship. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 9.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 337
... ...
... ... ..... ed to the Commissioner and is on record before us. From a very look at the same, it is clear that it is nothing but paper . We have also perused the specifications of filter paper contained in the buyers-guide published by the assessee. We have perused the certificate given by Plazma Laboratories on November 27, 1979, wherein it is stated that the process employed in manufacturing filter paper and writing paper is the same with the utilization of quite parallel raw material. We have also taken note of the fact that filter paper appears under the head other varieties of paper in the glossary of paper trade terms. On consideration of the same, we are of the clear opinion that filter paper is paper falling under entry 24(2) of Schedule C to the Act. 15.. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 16.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 336
... ...
... ... ..... d to by the counsel for the assessee. We, however, find that none of those two decisions has any relevance to the determination of the controversy. The controversy in the decision of this Court in Shetkari Sahakari Sangh 1975 35 STC 554 was whether oil engines sold to agriculturists for working pumping sets were agricultural machinery. This Court held it to be agricultural machinery. In Engineering Traders 1973 31 STC 456 FB the Allahabad High Court held water pumping sets to be agricultural implements. The ratio of these decisions have no application to the present case. 8.. For the reasons set out above, we hold that galvanised iron pipes are not agricultural implements within the meaning of entry 1 of Schedule A to the Act as it stood at the material time. 9.. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 335
... ...
... ... ..... il engine pumping sets including diesel oil pumping sets are not excluded. These pumping sets, therefore, continue to be agricultural machinery under entry 18(i) of Part I of Schedule C. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that pumps and pumping sets are two different and distinct commercial commodities. Pump is merely a component of pumping set which comprises of not only a pump , but also an oil engine or electrical motor depending upon whether it is an oil engine pumping set or an electrical pumping set. 5.. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that diesel oil pumping sets sold by the assessee are covered by entry 18(i) of Part I of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and not by the residuary entry 102 of Part II of the said Schedule. 6.. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 7.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 334
... ...
... ... ..... ich qualifies diluents and thinners , it is not necessary to do so. 9.. Our above conclusion is also supported from the fact that tol thinners and auto thinners have been sold by the assessee to customers who are mainly engaged in the business of manufacture of leather, rubber or resin cloth for use as a chemical in the manufacture of these products. 10.. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that tol thinner and auto thinner do not fall under entry 39(d) of Schedule C to the Act. 11.. Consequently, they will fall under entry 22 of Schedule E to the Act and will be taxable at the rates applicable to the sales of goods falling thereunder read with entry 39 of the Schedule to the notification issued by the State Government under section 41 of the Act. 12. For the reasons set out above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 333
... ...
... ... ..... ng thread does not fall within the scope of the entry cotton yarn . 9.. We have also perused the decisions of the Orissa High Court in Srinivasa Distributing Agencies v. State of Orissa 1981 48 STC 453 and Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons 1994 92 STC 262 where a contrary view has been taken. We have carefully considered the said decisions. However, with utmost respect, for the reasons set out above, we find it difficult to agree with the views of the Orissa and the Madras High Courts in the above decisions. In our opinion, there is hardly any scope for controversy about the fact that in common parlance and trade parlance yarn and sewing thread are regarded as two distinct and different commodities. 10.. In view of the above, all the three questions referred to us are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 11.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 332
... ...
... ... ..... ntendment of the Legislature is to provide concessional rate of tax on the sale of the components of any goods specified in the scheme for providing an incentive to the manufacturer to manufacture those goods in the State for sale either in the State or for the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It is this intention that has kept away from the surcharge the turnover of sale or purchase of this goods. A combined reading of sections 5-B and 6-B, in our view, leads to the conclusion that concessional rates of tax provided in provisions other than section 5-B, would form basis for levy of surcharge and they would be included within the expression tax under this Act , and the concessional tax contemplated under section 5-B shall not be exigible to surcharge under section 6-B. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is dismissed but in the circumstances no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 331
... ...
... ... ..... ould not fall under entry 58 of Schedule C. 9.. We do not propose in this case to decide the further controversy whether the PVC scooter and car covers sold by the assessee would fall under entry 22 or entry 19A(c) of Schedule E, because the rates of tax applicable to goods falling under both these entries during the material period and thereafter till the substitution of the Schedule itself with effect from July 1, 1981 being the same, it would be a purely academic exercise. 10.. In view of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the PVC scooter and car covers manufactured and sold by the assessee could be regarded as accessories of scooter and cars falling under entry 58 of Schedule C to the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11.. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 330
... ...
... ... ..... mah Shell Co., after the amendment of the definition business in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, would be taxable. The amended definition is more or less similar to the definition in the M.P. Act. 8.. In District Controller of Stores, Northern Railway, Jodhpur v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer 1976 37 STC 423 (SC), the court considered the effect of the amendment introduced to the word business in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and held that sales of unserviceable materials by the Northern Railways were exigible to sales tax. 9.. It is, therefore, clear that the disputed sales in the present case are exigible to sales tax. 10.. The question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 11.. A copy of the judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. 12.. The reference is accordingly disposed of, but without costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 329
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee followed description of goods classified by the Indian Standard Classification. Since this item of sale is second inter-State sale it is exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In view of the fact that the railway itself has issued a certificate in favour of the second purchaser, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the second sale took place during transit. In view of the foregoing facts, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,297.70 since it is exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Accordingly, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the abovesaid addition in view of the provisions contained under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In that view of the matter revision filed by the department is allowed in part. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 328
... ...
... ... ..... stion of documents not being produced, the appropriate course to be adopted by the appellate authority is to remand the case to the assessing authority. Even to secure a remand, it is necessary that the appellant should make out a case and that he could do only by producing the documents before the appellate authority. Even if it is not possible for the appellate authority to receive the documents and act upon this can be looked into for the limited purpose of determining whether the remand would be justified or not. The petitioner did not produce the documents before the appellate authority or the Appellate Tribunal. 6.. Whether sufficient cause was made out or not is a question of fact regarding which the appellate authority and the Tribunal have taken a view. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law arises in this regard. We find no ground to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case. The petition is dismissed without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 327
... ...
... ... ..... tes as hereunder The Government after considering the suggestion of the CCT and also taking into consideration of a number of representations to Government for stay for huge amounts of penalty under the CST Act for such technical violation, have decided that the CCT may issue instructions to the A.Os. to take a lenient view wherever a dealer purchased goods on the basis of C forms without including them in the CST registration certificate either inadvertently or ignorantly, so as to avoid a lot of complaints of harassment in the case of selected dealers and complaints of corruption also provided the dealer is eligible to have been goods included in the registration certificate. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the aforesaid notification we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalties levied under section 10-A of the Act. 9. Accordingly, the tax cases are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 326
... ...
... ... ..... s not deleted or amended. The Board of Revenue took the view that even if there is no statutory provision for set-off, set-off can be allowed under rule 20-A of the Rules. According to the Revenue, the Rule should have been deleted and even if not deleted, it would fall to the ground since it had no statutory support. These circumstances certainly give rise to a serious question of law to be referred to the High Court. We find that the dismissal of the reference application was not justified. 4.. The question of law which arises is whether a dealer is entitled to claim set-off of surcharge amount from sales tax dues under rule 20-A even though rule 20-A of the Rules has lost statutory support by amendment introduced to section 7-B of the Act with effect from May 1, 1977 and if the dealer is not entitled to surcharge, what would be the correct rate of tax? We direct the Board of Revenue to state the case and make a reference accordingly. Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 325
... ...
... ... ..... Products Ltd. 1969 24 STC 487 was repelled by the Supreme Court. It was observed ..........the form in which the invoice is made out is not determinative of the contract between the company and its customers. If, apprehending that it may have to pay sales tax on the freight, the company collected sales tax on the freight, the true nature of the contract between the company and the purchasers cannot on that account be altered.......the State cannot seek to levy tax on railway freight if it is not made a part of the price. 14.. The Revenue, however, would be at liberty to take appropriate action including initiation of proceedings for forfeiture of the amount of sales tax, if any, collected by the assessee on the amount of freight which did not form part of the sale price. 15.. This reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 324
... ...
... ... ..... pay tax under section 3 of the Act on the sales effected by him. It is for this reason that, despite the definition of business in clause (5A), the Legislature, by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1985, amended the definition of dealer in clause (11) with a view to levying tax on the disposal of unclaimed or confiscated goods including unserviceables, etc., by persons like Bombay Port Trust, Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, etc., and provided that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5A) or any other provisions of the Act, the persons specified therein would be deemed to be dealer to the extent of such disposals. In any event, as stated earlier, in the present case, we do not propose to express ourselves on the implication of these amendments as such. 16.. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 17.. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 323
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal failed to see that the petitioners-assessees did not ask for any cross-examination before the assessing authority and hence the question of affording opportunity for cross-examination did not arise in this case. But as pointed out by the Tribunal, more than once, the assessees categorically repudiated the alleged statements by the third parties. If that is so, it is the duty of the authorities to have afforded to the assessees an opportunity to cross-examine the third parties. It has also been held in R.G. Bandari and Company v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 1971 28 STC 465 (Mad.), that statements given by third parties which would be prejudicial to the assessees, by themselves cannot be the foundation for action, unless the aggrieved assessee is given an opportunity to cross-examine such persons reasonably. Therefore, we are unable to see any question of law arising in the present cases. Accordingly, these revisions are not admitted but dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 322
... ...
... ... ..... a High Court in Nestle s Products (India) Limited v. State of Orissa 1974 33 STC 356. In that case, it was held that the agent of the assessee had physical custody of the goods and by authority of agency he was entitled to pass on good title to any purchaser. If instead of selling the goods to the outsiders, the agent sold the goods to himself by appropriating the goods owned by the principal and claiming commission by making entries in his books, there was a transfer of title from the principal represented by the agent to a dealer (the agent in his independent capacity). 8.. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the appropriation of the principal s goods by the agent to himself did not constitute sale of goods. In view of the above, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 321
... ...
... ... ..... that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expression record appearing in section 57(1)(a) of the Act includes the books of account of the dealer on the basis of which the returns had been filed by him and assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer. We are also of the opinion that in a case like the one before us, where revisional authorities on perusal of the record of the case, including the books of account, came to a conclusion that the order passed by the subordinate authority was not in accordance with law, it is open to the revisional authority to exercise the power of suo motu revision under section 57(1)(a) of the Act. Such a case would not fall under section 35 of the Act. 7.. In the premises, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 320
... ...
... ... ..... oring the findings recorded by the learned single Judge on the merits of the case and we would like to make it clear that the findings recorded by the learned single Judge on the merits of the case would not be, in any way, binding on the authorities under the Act in deciding the case on merit. In the result, the special appeals in so far they relate to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 succeed and are allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge relating to these assessment years is set aside and the notices issued to the appellant-assessee under section 12(1) of the Act are quashed. However, the appeals of the appellant-assessee in so far they relate to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 fail and are accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and the order of the learned single Judge to that extent is maintained. In view of divided success, the parties will bear their own costs. Appeals partly allowed.
........
|
