|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 463
... ...
... ... ..... ation is Whether the disputed turnover relates to sale value of coir product or rubberised coir product? 4.. Point The products were produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal satisfied on verification that it is essentially a coir product and latex which forms only a small portion is added to give the necessary shape. According to the Tribunal, rubber was not blended with the coir so as to call the product as rubberised coir product. Inasmuch as the Tribunal, which is the fact finding authority, on physical verification of the product, came to the conclusion that the disputed turnover relates to the sale value of coir products, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not correct in granting exemption under the notification issued under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect. 5.. In the result, the tax case revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 462
... ...
... ... ..... o contend that salt petre would not fall under entry 138 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act. 6.. In Hardcastle, Waud and Co. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993 89 STC 352 (Mad.) while considering the word chemical this Court held that, whether a commodity can be described as a chemical , for the purpose of a similar entry, must be determined not by the use for which a particular purchaser buys it but with reference to the general properties which make it saleable to the entire range of prospective buyers. Thus, on a plain reading of entry 138 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, in the light of various decisions cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that salt petre is not a chemical. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect is set aside and the order passed by the assessing officer stands restored. Accordingly, T.C. (R) Nos. 1158 of 1984 and T.C. No. 1159 of 1984 are allowed in part. Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 461
... ...
... ... ..... tion or the value of the goods was paid by the assessee. It is not in dispute that the amendment introducing section 2(n) brought about by Amendment Act No. 28 of 1984 which came into effect from May 29, 1984 will not be applicable to the facts of this case, since the assessment year involved in this case was for the year 1979-80. However, without proper particulars, it is not possible to decide whether there is any transfer that took place between the assessee and the association in the matter of distributing wattle extract. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to ascertain all these facts and decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In this view of the matter, this revision is allowed, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 460
... ...
... ... ..... t when the appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee submitted that there is an agreement between him and the distributors according to which the transport and handling charges are to be borne by the distributors. But this agreement was not verified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Appellate Tribunal, on verification of the bills, agreement, etc., came to the conclusion that transport and handling charges were mentioned separately without including them in the sale price of the soft drinks. This conclusion was arrived at on the facts arising in this case. Inasmuch as on verification of facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption on the turnover of Rs. 13,507.85, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 459
... ...
... ... ..... of this Court, the supplies of cement, iron and steel by the undertaking to the contractors for utilising the same in the construction of the factory buildings and other buildings at the site of the project do not amount to sale within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Act and do not fall within the definition of business as defined under section 2(aa) and dealer as defined by section 2(c) of the Act. No tax liability on the price of these goods supplied to the contractors is attracted under the Act. Therefore the legal question raised in this revision is accordingly answered. The S.T.R. No. 415 of 1992 is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated February 22, 1992 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The S.T.R. No. 448 of 1992 is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated February 22, 1992 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. The learned Tribunal is hereby directed to pass further consequential orders accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 458
... ...
... ... ..... higher polymers are insoluble in water. Melting range 120-170 deg C flash point 160 deg F(71 deg C) (closed cup). Combustible. Autoignition temp. 572 deg F (300 deg C). Derivation By evaporating an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. Forms Flaks powder. Grades Bags carlots. Hazard Moderately toxic by ingestion. Uses Fungicides, bactericides, and disinfectants adhesives hardener and waterproofing agent for gelatin contraceptive creams. A plain reading of the abovesaid dictionary would go to show that formaldehyde is neither a liquefied nor solidified gas so as to consider the same to fall under item 106 of the First Schedule to the Act. Therefore, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that formaldehyde would fall under item 138 of the First Schedule to the Act. Accordingly we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter the tax case revision filed by the State stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 457
... ...
... ... ..... nd remitted the tax before December 31, 1991. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondent-company ought to have paid advance tax before June 30, 1991. For their failure to pay the advance tax, respondent-company has explained the reasons for the delay in remitting the tax. The Tribunal has gone through the reply submitted by the respondent-company and was satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent-company. The power to impose penalty is a discretionary one. Inasmuch as the respondentcompany has satisfactorily explained the delay in not remitting the advance tax in time and further it was found that the respondent-company has filed the return and paid the tax in excess amounting to Rs. 49,57,482, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the levy of penalty under section 37(5) of the Act is not sustainable. We do not find any question of law involved in the above case. Therefore, we summarily dismiss the tax revision case. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 456
... ...
... ... ..... ried by the petitioner from places outside the State of Assam and entering into the State of Assam at the entry check-post at Damra in future except in cases where correct and complete declarations have not been given in the prescribed form in respect of such livestock and on enquiry the officer in-charge of the check-post is satisfied that to prevent evasion of tax it is necessary to collect such security. But it is made clear that in case such livestock transported through the State is not accounted for at the exit check-post the officer in-charge of such exit check-post will be within his authority to presume that the goods have been sold within the State of Assam in accordance with sub-section (15) of section 46 and demand and recover tax or security with regard to such livestock in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 46 with a view to prevent evasion of tax under the Act. The Civil Rule and Misc. case are accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (3) TMI 455
... ...
... ... ..... t in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishan 1994 95 STC 170 on the ground that the other points raised by them in their case, as enumerated by this Tribunal in paragraph 14 of the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in that case, were not decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishan 1994 95 STC 170. 11.. As the matter stands, this Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishan 1994 95 STC 170 and cannot take up for hearing the other points taken in the case of Rasoi Limited 1991 80 STC 356 (WBTT). We are of the opinion that after the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishan 1994 95 STC 170 the present application cannot be heard on the other points raised in the case of Rasoi Limited 1991 80 STC 356 (WBTT). 12.. The application is accordingly dismissed. No order is made as to costs. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).I agree. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 454
... ...
... ... ..... identical and similar to the cases, which have been decided by this Court, we are of the view that the period of exemption in the case of the petitioner from payment of sales tax would still be the same, i.e., six years from the date of production that is April 21, 1984, as stated by the petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition and not from any subsequent date as claimed by the petitioner, in some of the supplementary affidavits. In view of what has been stated herein above this writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No. 2 to modify the eligibility certificate dated August 31, 1987, issued by respondent No. 2 for grant of eligibility certificate for a period of six years instead of four years with effect from the date of production, that is April 21, 1984. Sales Tax Officer Sector-I, NOIDA-respondent-3 is directed to pass provisional assessment order in accordance with the observations made above. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 453
... ...
... ... ..... ollowing order The applicant will be at liberty to file a fresh application for declaration forms under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to the appropriate officer and will produce the duplicate carbon copies of original purchase vouchers together with xerox copies of the same. After the application for declaration forms is disposed of the duplicate carbon copies of purchase vouchers should be returned to the applicant so that he may also return the same to the selling dealer, because the duplicate carbon copies which are now lying with the selling dealers will have to be brought by the applicant and produced before the officer concerned. The appropriate officer will issue sales tax declaration forms without requiring production of any other documents within a period of 7 days from the date of production of the said duplicate carbon copies of original purchase vouchers. Thus the main application is disposed of without any order for costs. on disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (3) TMI 452
... ...
... ... ..... go to show that there is no instance of sale between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation with regard to the tins. Inasmuch as the bills produced would go to show that the State Trading Corporation itself has purchased the tins from the sellers and in the absence of any evidence to show that the assessee paid the purchase money for the bill we have to conclude that the State Trading Corporation is the purchaser of the tins as per the materials available on record. Thus considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the decisions cited supra, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that no tax is leviable on the sale value of the tins. Since there was no tax leviable on the sale value of tins, there is no necessity to consider the grounds raised by the department in the matter of levying penalty under section 12(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 451
... ...
... ... ..... e manufacture of tyres. It is a product generally intended for industrial use. The rayon tyre cord employed as a component in the manufacture of rayon tyre cord fabric is also sold directly as such..... Tyre cord is purchased directly by some tyre manufacturers, who by applying the same process of putting in the wefts, convert it into a tyre cord fabric for use in the tyre. 3.. In view of the fact that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that cotton tyre cord warp sheet and rayon tyre cord warp sheet are textile fabrics within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of India cited above, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is in order on this aspect. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. In the result, the revisions are dismissed with costs. Counsel fee fixed at Rs. 1,000 (one thousand) one set only. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 450
... ...
... ... ..... s restricted to a sense analogous to less general. The same rule was extended to interpret the words and phrases by the Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 610 (State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha). In that view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the Legislature in the present case did not intend to include plastic bangles and glass bangles in entry 30 and entry 54 for, by no stretch of imagination can those commodities be associated with or comparable with glass sheets which give the key to the meaning of the expression all articles made of glass or all articles made of plastic . Hence, the view taken by the Commissioner at annexure E is wholly inapt. The same shall stand quashed. The assessments made so far as the petitioners are concerned in regard to the levy of tax on glass bangles and plastic bangles shall stand quashed. In other respects, the assessments shall remain undisturbed. 4.. Petitions allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 449
... ...
... ... ..... dity for the purpose of doing business run by the assessee, it cannot be said that purchase of groundnut kernel by using C forms would amount to false representation made to his sellers. There cannot also be any guilty mind or mens rea in using the C forms to purchase the essential commodity for running his business. It is the only essential commodity which is absolutely essential for the purpose of carrying on the trade run by the assessee. Under such circumstances we consider that purchase of groundnut kernel by the assessee by using the C forms would not amount to making any false representation or any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in violating the provisions contained in section 10(b) of the Act. Accordingly we hold that penalty under section 10-A of the Act is not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we cancel the penalty levied under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. 12.. In the result, the revision is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 448
... ...
... ... ..... 1976 37 STC 319. 5.. The position could not be different prior to October 1, 1978, though the Act, as it then stood, did not contain the definition of packing material and the clause (xiii) of entry 6. That is the effect of use of the words that is to say in entry 6 of the Act, as it stood prior to October 1, 1978. Bamboo crates were not specified as packing material in entry 6 and, therefore, the residuary entry in Part VI of Schedule II would apply. 6.. On October 1, 1978, a notification was issued specifying 10 categories of goods as packing materials for the purpose of entry 15. The additional 10th item is bamboo khanchas . Bamboo khancha is bamboo crate. This cannot be regarded as clarificatory. 7.. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 8.. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be forwarded to the Board of Revenue. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (3) TMI 447
... ...
... ... ..... As the first respondent has returned the form XVII submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to re-submit the form XVII to the first respondent and the first respondent in turn shall forward the said forms to the third respondent and the third respondent shall refund the excess amount of sales tax collected in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit the form XVII to the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The first respondent shall forward the forms, within two weeks from the receipt of the forms to the third respondent and thereafter, the third respondent shall pass final orders, within a period of four weeks. The third respondent shall return the amount of sales tax collected in excess of the provisions contained in section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to the petitioner. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 446
... ...
... ... ..... t the general principle would apply. With respect, we agree with the view taken by the High Courts of Kerala and Punjab and Haryana. 7.. In its earlier order, the Tribunal decided the controversy as to the exigibility to tax holding that the bamboo was subjected to manufacturing process and became a different commercial commodity and this finding was not sought to be challenged in any way by the assessee by seeking reference to the High Court. The finding became concluded. The concluded finding does not become unsettled on account of the view taken by the High Court in another case subsequently. The matter could not have been reopened either by the assessing authority or by the appellate authority or the Tribunal. We therefore answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (3) TMI 445
... ...
... ... ..... uch deemed sale have already suffered tax. Same goods cannot be subjected to tax twice-once as sale and secondly as deemed sale- in the face of the legislative intent of single point taxation. In the result, Special Appeal No. 1 of 1995 is allowed. The order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is set aside affirming the view of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta, in Appeal No. B/57/93-94 dated April 27, 1994. W.P. Nos. 12656, 12672, 12673 of 1991 and 21481 and 22349 of 1994 are allowed. The assessment orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside and the cases are remanded to the original assessing authority with a direction to complete the assessments as expeditiously as possible after issuing due notice and affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee in strict compliance with the statutory rules and in the light of the law declared, observations made and conclusions reached by us in this judgment. No costs. Appeals and writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 444
... ...
... ... ..... ash the circular bearing No. NYAYA-91-92/PRA.AA. (UNYA.NI.)-54/BIKRIKAR, dated April 2, 1991 issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., and allow the writ petitions setting aside the assessment orders which have been passed by different assessing authorities in different writ petitions mentioned above as well as the recovery proceedings based thereon, and direct the assessing authorities to consider the question of exigibility of gunny bags to trade tax afresh taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the relevant considerations as laid down in different judgments referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. So far in those writ petitions mentioned above where assessment proceedings have been stayed, the assessing authorities shall resume the assessment proceedings and pass the orders, as indicated above. There would however, be no order as to costs. Pronounced under Chapter VII, rule (2) of the Rules of the court. Writ petitions allowed.
........
|
