|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 355 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 422 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 63 are more than clear, specifically referring to rule 63(d) requiring that in the event of none of the modes specified therein is found to be practical, then it has to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business or by publication in a newspaper. The position is elementary and not different from the normal procedure of service even contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. The result is that it is declared that the postal endorsement left is not by itself proof of service of notice in accordance with the provisions of section 55B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and rule 63 of the Rules thereunder. As a result thereof assessment orders (exhibits P1 to P4) get quashed and set aside with a consequential order of remittance to respondent No. 1 to follow procedure of service in accordance with the provisions of section 55B of the Act and rule 63 of the Rules thereunder. The petition succeeds. Order accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 421 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . There is no gain-saying that the assessment order has to be a process as a result of the participation of the assessee in question. Considering the facts and circumstances in the light of the above legal position and the principles of natural justice which are necessary to be followed apart from the statutory provisions referred to above, in my judgment the petition can be disposed of by the following order. The assessment order exhibit P6 gets quashed and set aside for the reasons recorded above and the proceedings are remitted to the respondent for commencing them de novo after following the principles of natural justice and the above provisions. The respondent is directed to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the process of assessment in the context, obviously after giving him prior notice after the present judgment. Petition stands disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 30105 of 1995 in O.P. No. 16637 of 1995 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 420 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ayed and controversy, as projected. 18.. The Tribunal shall now act accordingly to deal with exact controversy and to do complete justice between the parties. 19.. The omega is said. Yet a word more thereafter. The party, dissatisfied by the order of the Tribunal after this remand, will have freedom to resort to proper remedy as may be permissible under the law. Aggrieved party, may also approach the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law as may arise out of the fresh order to this Court and Tribunal may answer such prayer, if made, in conformity with law. 20.. These cases thus, stand disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 21.. The Tribunal is directed to make an endeavour to decide the case expeditiously say within nine months from the receipt of the copy of this order. 22.. One copy of this order shall be retained in the connected Misc. Civil Case No. 255 of 1988 for ready reference. Applications disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 419 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ese three reference applications, in terms of section 44(4) of the Act. 18.. The counsel for both the sides have seen the question and have consented to re-statement of the case and reference of the re-formulated question for answer. 19.. In the result we find it fit to remand these cases back to the Tribunal in terms of section 44(4) of the Act and call upon it to re-state the case properly and refer the aforesaid question of law for our answer. The parties are left to bear their own costs of these references as incurred. These cases stand disposed of finally. 20.. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal under the signature of the Registrar of this Court and seal of the High Court. The Tribunal shall comply with this order within one year, from receipt of order. 21.. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 296 of 1986 and a copy thereof shall be placed in the corrected records of Misc. civil cases, as particularised above, for ready reference.
-
1995 (11) TMI 418 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the purchases were made from a manufacturer at Sahidabad. The Tribunal has accepted this contention after a detailed discussion and appraisal of the material on record. Whether the dealer had imported ice-cream or had purchased it within the State of Uttar Pradesh are pure questions of fact and on being taken through the impugned order no legal error in determining these questions of fact has been pointed out. No question of law therefore, arises from the order of the Tribunal. The revision petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The revision petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 417 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt is set aside. 8.. It is thus, clear that the first appellate authority enhanced the amount of penalty not on his own volition, but in accordance with the letter issued by the superior authority, i.e., the Commissioner. This had vitiated the order of enhancement and manifested that the discretion was not judicially exercised and enhancement was not on his own volition. 9.. In the result, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the enhancement in the penalty ordered by the first appellate authority on the ground that it was not made on his own volition. 10.. Ex consequenti, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 11.. The reference stands disposed of accordingly, but without any orders as to costs. 12. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of Registrar of this Court in terms of section 44(5) of the Act. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (11) TMI 416 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... will also be entitled to set-off provided under the proviso (vii), Therefore, we hold that the applicant/assessee is entitled to the set-off of entry tax paid. 6.. The next question is as to whether the assessee has satisfied the authorities that the goods has suffered the entry tax or not at the hands of the commission agents. According to the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue, it appears that the applicant/assessee has not produced necessary challan and details before the authorities to the effect that the goods in question has already suffered entry tax or not. Therefore, we direct that it is open for the applicant/assessee to produce the original papers to satisfy the assessing authorities as to whether the goods has really suffered entry tax and if the assessee satisfy the authorities, then he will be entitled to the benefit of proviso (vii) of section 3(1) of the Act. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 415 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evenue submits that this question stands squarely answered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asbestos Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh 1976 38 STC 321 where a similar question under section 39(2) of the Act has been answered and it is pointed out that as regards limitation of three years provided by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Act, the period will have to be computed from the date of issue of the notice and not from the date of service. Since the question has been already answered by this Court in the case of Asbestos Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1976 38 STC 321 that the period of three years is to be computed from the date of issue of notice and not from the date of service, the aforesaid question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as in the present case notice was issued on April 20, 1971 and it is accordingly within limitation. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
-
1995 (11) TMI 414 - ORISSA HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. The requirement of furnishing reasons is a shackle on acting arbitrarily and whimsically. Even when the statute does not impose such an obligation, it is necessary for the quasi-judicial authority to record reasons as it is the only visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision, whether it is considered purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts and the conclusions reached. Reasons if given substitute objectivity for subjectivity. Therefore, the authority while adjudicating the question whether penalty is to be imposed has to record reasons. If it is not done, the order becomes vulnerable. 9.. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. R.K. DASH, J.-I agree.
-
1995 (11) TMI 413 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... place and in my view since the preliminary condition of the sub-section is not satisfied in such a case, the consequent obligation of deciding the questions of law and delivering a judgment does not also arise. It appears to me, therefore, that it is not required of us that we should answer the question referred to us in this reference at all, since the assessees are not appearing before us. We, therefore, decline to answer the question. 7.. This Court is, thus, under no obligation to decide the questions of law referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee because the assessee has failed to appear at the hearing and pursue the references. 8.. We, therefore, find that the contention raised by Shri Gupta deserves to be permitted to prevail. Accordingly we refuse to answer the references and also saddle the assessee with costs quantified at Rs. 300 (one set) payable to the department. 9.. A copy of this order shall be placed in the record of M.C.C. No. 304 of 1986.
-
1995 (11) TMI 412 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n or otherwise. 8.. Learned counsel submitted that he has come directly before this Court against the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore (annexure F) who, by his order dated January 5, 1989, has rejected the appeal of the petitioners filed against the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. Learned counsel submitted that he could have filed second appeal under the Act, but because he was bona fide pursuing the remedy before this Court as he has challenged the validity of the Act and he could not file second appeal. Be that as it may. We have already found that the Act does not suffer from any illegality. In case there is remedy against this order under the Act, the petitioners may pursue it before the competent forum in accordance with law. 9.. Hence there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 411 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... depot and the goods were directly delivered to the buyers. In our view the Tribunal was also justified in holding that a transaction of Rs. 2,39,000 was in respect of inter-State sales when the goods were directly despatched to buyers located at the places in Maharashtra other than where the assessee s depots were located by the headquarters at Indore. As the answer turned out on the facts and the facts were found proved, we are satisfied with the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. 10.. In the result, we answer the aforesaid questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. 11.. Both the reference applications are answered accordingly with no order as to costs. 12.. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal under the signature of the Registrar of this Court and seal of the High Court. 13.. A copy of this order shall be placed in the connected Misc. Civil Case No. 357 of 1986. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 410 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by this Court and has to be set aside. The Tribunal will have to accept the account books and record the finding of fact relating to the assessment on the basis of the account books. I hold that the rejection of the account books of the petrol unit of the assessee is unjustified and illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings of fact on the grounds raised in this revision are liable to be quashed and the learned Tribunal has to be directed to decide the appeals in the light of the findings and observations made hereinabove. Therefore, the revision is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment dated January 15, 1993 passed by the learned Tribunal in Second Appeals Nos. 664 and 665 of 1988 are set aside and the Tribunal is hereby directed to rehear and decide the appeals afresh on the basis of the findings recorded and observations made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible. Let a certified copy of order be issued within 3 days on payment of usual fee. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 409 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt authority on October 12, 1995 and filed application for time. That apart even the final order was passed on October 16, 1995 before the filing of the writ application. But it is really unfortunate that all these facts were deliberately suppressed. Therefore, on this ground also this Court should refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of such a person, who has not come to the court with a clean hand. 18.. In view of the facts, noticed above, I have no option but to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ application. But, I must observe that the present order would not stand against the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal or revision before the appropriate authority and raise all the questions, which are legally available to him. 19.. In the result, subject to the observation, made above, this writ application is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 408 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it would be open to the Commissioner to refuse to invoke his jurisdiction on the ground that the assessee had not exhausted remedies of appeal available to them under the statute. Therefore, in the absence of all the relevant materials on the record, it would be difficult for this Court to issue any positive direction to the Commissioner or the appellate authority. But, however, it will be open to the petitioners to invoke the alternative remedy of appeal and revision before the concerned authority in accordance with law. It is also clarified that this order will not cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners before the appellate or revisional authority at any stage. 16.. In the result, this writ application is, thus, held not maintainable since the petitioners had adequate and efficacious remedy of appeal and revision against the impugned orders under the Act. 17.. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is, thus, disposed of. Writ application dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 407 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dvocate sought to contend that the expression total turnover in the present case will have to be understood with reference to the context and must be taken to mean that it excludes transactions in relation to which State would not be in a position to levy tax. But this argument does not stand close scrutiny. Prior to the amendment of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act by Act 4 of 1992, provisions of section 5-C which was inserted by Act No. 27 of 1985 brought to tax only taxable turnover and not total turnover . Therefore, the legislative intent is very clear that what is sought to be taxed is as defined thereon. Therefore the argument that with reference to context the different meaning will have to be given would not arise. Hence, we have no hesitation to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that section 5-C is invalid and we declare the same as unconstitutional and void. Petitions shall stand allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 406 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... explains that the components which have entered into determining the price of the goods cannot be treated separately from the goods themselves and that no account was in fact taken of the packing material when the transaction took place, and that if such account must be taken then the same rate must be applied to the packing material as is applicable to the goods themselves . Therefore, it was mere for examining the validity of section 6-C and any observation in that decision does not in any way militate against the view which has been taken by this Court and by us presently. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the authorities below was not correct and we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction on the packing material used by him for packing the agarbattis, under section 2(r)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the question is answered in favour of the assessee/applicant and against the Revenue/ non-applicant. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (11) TMI 405 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fic purpose and it is limited by the terms of sub-section (2) of section 4 and it cannot be projected in section 8(ii). Section 4 has, in fact, nothing to do with section 8(ii). They are distinct and independent provisions operating on totally different areas, and it is difficult to see how section 4 can be availed of for the purpose of interpreting the expression registered dealer in section 8(ii). Their Lordships have held that the artificial fiction of deeming dealer when it is not intended, should not be extended beyond the context, that is the situation here. Therefore, it is not possible to extend the deemed expression appearing in sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act when section 13 of the Entry Tax Act has deliberately not made this section applicable to the Entry Tax Act. Hence the non-applicant/assessee cannot be deemed to be a registered dealer under the Entry Tax Act. Hence, this reference is answered against the Revenue. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (11) TMI 404 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... said position in the matter of recovery which is undertaken years thereafter, the law relating to the recovery will have to be considered for application by the State authorities under the general sales tax law of the State. 21.. Therefore, apart from the present petitioner having sailed in the same boat as that of the petitioner in O.P. No. 9516 of 1991, it cannot be said that resort to the provisions of section 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act would not be available in the matter of recovery of the tax due to the partnership firm from the partners as discussed above. 22.. Lastly, it stares in the face of the record that undisputed arrears of years 1957-58 up to 1962-63 initiated on the basis of recovery process commenced in 1978 with sale notice of 1991 are still at square No. 1, an aspect which also has bearing on the exercise of exceptional powers. For all the above reasons the petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to suffer their costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 403 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . These facts are not disputed by the Standing Counsel. We are, therefore, of the view that sub-section (6) of section 4-B cannot be said to have been violated, inasmuch as the notified goods have not been sold by the petitioner outside the State in view of sub-section (6) of section 4-B. Simply because the petitioner effected consignment sales of khali which is a residue only and not covered by the expression notified goods , section 4-B(6) cannot be resorted to take action against the petitioner. Similar view was taken by this Court in the cases of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agra Food Product Pvt. Ltd. 1985 59 STC 47 (All.) 1984 UPTC 465 and Goel Industries Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1986 UPTC 162. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned notice dated February 7, 1979, is illegal. For the reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned notice dated February 7, 1979 (annexure 3 to the petition) is quashed. Petition allowed.
........
|
