|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 408 Records
-
1996 (4) TMI 478 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on behalf of the Revenue or even at the instance of the assessee. 6.. Even then the Tribunal did not find any difference in regard to the article and it is on the basis of the natural position that the part necessarily follows the qualities of the whole and does not display any kind of difference in regard thereto. The Tribunal has observed that when timber is sown into planks, there is no change to the commodity, still it is timber. Proceeding further, the Tribunal has also thought that tapioca chips cannot be understood as separate from tapioca itself and if tapioca is raw, the chips made therefrom also shall assume the same character. Therefore, in spite of the position that the issue did not arise at all and has been taken up by the Tribunal on self-assumption that it is the main issue, it will not affect and disturb the original fabric that the question did not arise for consideration at all. For the above reasons the revision case stands dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 477 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nterference it becomes much more difficult in exercise of power under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 8.. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Rectification Petition No. 1 of 1993 and the order dated March 17, 1993 in regard thereto passed by the Tribunal. This was after the filing of this petition. Even going through the order stating that as the observations sought to be rectified must have been on the basis of submissions in regard thereto we do not think that this would change the course of the present proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the observation in the order of the Tribunal, Anyhow there is no canvassing for the acceptance of the accounts which was the subject-matter of the rectification. We also do not take it as a concession by the counsel. Even apart therefrom the material on record as stated above does not persuade us, as stated, even independently. For the above reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 476 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt material for answer of this Court. In pursuance of the directions of this Court for calling the supplementary statement of the case, the Board of Revenue sent a supplementary statement disclosing that the iron and steel purchased by the assessee was used in mining business and not for construction of staff quarters in the remote areas of mines as found by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in the assessment order dated June 26, 1981. It was also stated that this fact had been admitted by the learned counsel for the assessee in the written submission made before the Board of Revenue. In view of this fact, it is clear that the assessee used these purchases of iron and steel in business as equipment and these goods are exigible to entry tax. Hence in this view of the matter, the Board of Revenue has rightly held against the assessee. Therefore, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (4) TMI 475 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one of these authorities have made any effort to understand the nature of the commodity with reference to the same and to decide as to under which entry this commodity falls by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 8.. We think that the proper course to be adopted in this case is to quash and set aside all the orders on this point and to direct the assessing authority to consider the question regarding the rate of tax applicable to fenoklin in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and in accordance with law. 9.. We accordingly set aside the orders of the assessing authority and the two appellate authorities and direct the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) II, Special Circle II, Ernakulam, to consider the question afresh in the light of the directions contained hereinabove and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The tax revision cases are disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (4) TMI 474 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ice as per manufacturer s list and sales tax charged in the bills, if this would not had been so, bills would have shown its price including the sales tax paid and no sales tax was charged from any Government department in excess what was paid by him. These facts have been denied by the respondents vide paras Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of their reply. It has also been stated that the averments made in para No. 6 of the writ petition are contrary to record. The officer in-charge has verified his affidavit on the basis of the official records. In support of his version, the petitioner has not filed any document including the price lists of the manufacturers and the bills issued by him showing the bifurcation of the price. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner did not charge sales tax from his customers in excess of the amounts he paid as sales tax for the disputed goods. In my humble view, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on merits. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 473 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner for the assessment year 1979-80. The petitioner, therefore, cannot avail of the rule as stated in the case of S.C. Prashar 1963 49 ITR 1 (SC) AIR 1963 SC 1356. 25.. We are, therefore, of the view that the case of S.C. Prashar 1963 49 ITR 1 (SC) AIR 1963 SC 1356 is misplaced before us by Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal. Here italicised. 26.. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for respondents drew our attention to several decisions in support of his contention that the case of S.C. Prashar 1963 49 ITR 1 (SC) AIR 1963 SC 1356 has been understood by the court in the manner analysed by us. As we do not see any difficulty in interpreting and understanding the case of S.C. Prashar 1963 49 ITR 1 (SC) AIR 1963 SC 1356, we do not see it necessary to allude to all those judgments. 27.. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. The interim order dated December 19, 1991, is discharged. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 472 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... a duty and responsibility to extend the time whenever the occasion, in the interest of justice, demands. He should not have his hands and feet tied down, disabling himself from exercising his judicial discretion for extension of time as the occasion demands. 6.. In the instant case, since the petitioner has not been given reasonable time for filing his objection and as the request made by him for extension of time had been rejected without assigning reasons, the impugned order of assessment is set aside with liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. It is needless to state that the petitioner should be heard before any orders of assessment is made. The petitioner is granted time till May 15, 1996, to file his objections. 7.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 8. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 19th day of April, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 471 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ty in regard to the payment of tax or loss fee or other amount, the appellant (or applicant) or any person on his behalf shall furnish property security with a security bond in form XIX or a bank gurantee in form XIX-C. 3.. Admittedly, in the instant case, the bank gurnatee was furnished in form XIX-C. Neither in rule 31 nor in form XIX-c is there any condition that the bank should situate in Tamil Nadu. Hence the bank guantee furnished by the petitioner is in accordance with law and should have been accepted It is so ordered. The Additional government Pleader rightly points out that immovable property offered as a security though situated outside the territory of Tamil Nadu has already been ordered to be accepted in another case. 4.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerrned. 5.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 19th day of April, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 470 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the product as paper based is that sheets of paper are pasted one over the other with resin and not with gum. What is relevant is to find out whether it is paper based or plywood based. When it is accepted that paper is pasted one over the other whether it is pasted with resin or gum is immaterial. The reason given by the assessing officer for rejecting the case of the petitioner is found to be unacceptable. Further the entry does not say that if the paper based product is hard, it would become plywood based. In the circumstances, the assessment order is set aside in so far as it relates to the paper based product. The product is assessable at 5 per cent under Sl. No. 44(v) of Part C of the First Schedule and not at 12 per cent. 6.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 7.. Issued under my hand and the seal of the Tribunal on this the 12th day of April 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 469 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ning the question of tax liability in respect of the stock transfer of Rs. 1,58,625 by the company to its Nagpur depot supported by form F bearing No. Z/o-668458. 6.. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision is hereby allowed and the impugned order of remand dated 15th April, 1995, passed by Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 623 of 1993 (85-86 under the Central Sales Tax Act) are hereby set aside and the learned Tribunal is hereby directed under section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act to determine afresh on the basis of record and in the light of the observations made hereinabove after affording opportunity to the assessee as expeditiously as possible, April 19, 1996. 7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the applicant within a week on payment of requisite charges, and he shall produce the same before the learned Tribunal on or before May 20, 1996 and obtain the date fixed by the Tribunal for hearing of the appeal. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 468 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e word like has been used as a suffix to the words civil works at serial No. 6 of the Schedule in the notification dated April 27, 1987. 11.. For the reasons, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to take benefit of the composition scheme in respect of its both the indivisible civil contracts. 12.. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders dated February 8, 1993 and February 11, 1994 (annexures 5 and 10 respectively to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 are quashed and respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner seeking benefit of the composition scheme (annexure 1 to the writ petition) for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 in accordance with law within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said respondent by the petitioner, until given on the application as aforesaid. The stay order dated April 7, 1984 will continue. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 467 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnover in the impugned provision if it at all intended to levy cess on the aggregate transactions of the dealer concerned effected through all its branches in the State. But it has not done so. Therefore, it has to be inferred that the Legislature had no intention to levy cess on sales and purchases effected by a dealer through its branches lying outside the Bangalore area. 31.. For the aforesaid reasons, it is declared that the dealers carrying on business within the limits of Bangalore City Planning Area are liable to pay cess on sales or purchases effected by them in the said area only. The circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated April 21, 1995 in No. 3/949-95 is accordingly quashed as having misread the impugned provisions. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioners will be entitled to all such reliefs which logically flows from the said declaration. 32.. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed but without awarding any costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 466 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ional Bench-in the order dated October 8, 1990. The question is considered only in paragraph 17 of the order of the Tribunal which is described already at the outset of this judgment. 8.. Considering the situation it is jurisdictional that the authorities must know, determine and adjudicate as to what is the article that is sought to be made liable to the levy of sales tax. This has not been done. 9.. The consequence follows as a sequitur. The impugned order dated October 8, 1990 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A. No. 143 of 1984 gets quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the Tribunal to consider the question of determination as to what is the article that is sought to be made liable to the levy of sales tax. The Tribunal also may consider the necessity of determining the said question by passing necessary orders in regard thereto. The revision case stands disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (4) TMI 465 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the previous notification will stand revived. We see no force in the submission. The matter may be looked at from another angle also. Under the previous notification tax liability was nil in so far as the petitioners are concerned and by the impugned notification a new tax liability has been created and, therefore, this is not a case where intention was to confer some benefit on the petitioners, but the intention was to create a new liability by rationalising the tax structure. In the Indian Express Newspapers case AIR 1986 SC 515, this question came up before the Supreme Court and then the court held that the old notification giving exemption on the purchase of newsprint could not revive on the quashing of the impugned notification. For the reasons, we decline to accept the submissions of Sri Ramchandran and reiterate that the impugned notification is valid. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. However, the parties will bear their own costs Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 464 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... retreading and there is no sale of the retreaded tyre as such. In this perspective, it cannot be stated that there is sale of the goods produced. There is no sale of the retreaded tyre. Unless there is a sale of the goods produced, the small-scale industrial unit will not be entitled to the exemption relied on. 12.. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Anyhow, as prayed, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file objections in response to the impugned proposition notices within four weeks from today, which, if so filed, shall be duly considered by the assessing officer while passing assessment orders. There will be no order as to cost. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 463 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oard of Revenue) was justified in holding that the appendix certificates which are not timely received from the Government departments and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board are not acceptable at the appeal stage when the same were available at that stage? This question does require an answer because the Lordships of honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. 1994 94 STC 410 AIR 1994 SC 2364, have taken the view that any document which is filed at the time of assessment, should be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to the decision of this Court given in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dawar Brothers 1986 61 STC 35. Hence, we direct the Board of Revenue to send the statement of case pertaining to the aforesaid question for answer of this Court. Rest two questions which have been framed by the assessee, do not warrant any answer therefore that prayer is rejected.
-
1996 (4) TMI 462 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ckages and impugned order deserves to be set aside. 61.. As such the notification dated March 27, 1995, issued under section 5 of the Act prescribing different rates of tax for tea on the basis of its packing should be declared invalid to that extent. Tea will be exigible to tax at one rate, i.e., 4 per cent only. By majority That loose tea when sold in packages/packets weighing 20 kilograms or more shall be exigible to sales tax at 4 per cent under entry No. 21 of the notification dated March 27, 1995 at the first point of sale. Such a tea when sold in smaller packets will not be exigible to tax over again. The packaged tea or tea in packets weighing less than 20 kilograms brought into Rajasthan from outside the State shall be exigible to tax at 10 per cent under entry No. 100 at the first point of sale. Entries Nos. 21 and 100 shall be construed accordingly. The order of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, dated January 12, 1996, is set aside.
-
1996 (4) TMI 461 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... utator . By placing reliance on the definition of commutator given in the British Encyclopaedia, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that commutator is a device used for generation of electricity. In Karnal Machinery Store s case 1973 31 STC 3, a Division Bench of this Court held that monoblock pumping sets used for agricultural purposes were exempted from payment of sales tax. Neither of these two decisions have got bearing on the question referred to us and in our opinion the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench in Gupta Agencies v. State of Punjab 1994 92 STC 543 (P and H). For the reasons mentioned above, the reference is answered in favour of the department and it is held that the electric motors do not fall within the ambit of excepted goods mentioned in entry 17 of Schedule A to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the same are liable to sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent. Reference answered in favour of department.
-
1996 (4) TMI 460 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... at it would frame separate rule for the purpose. It cannot now turn around and say that the form of declaration as mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 22A and as prescribed in rule 62A would be applicable with equal force to section 22C even for the period ranging from April 1, 1987, when section 22C came into force, to May 26, 1987, when rule 62B was brought into existence. From whatever angle I look at it I find that because of the failure of the department to prescribe a form of declaration relatable to sub-section (1) of section 22C no offence was committed until May 26, 1987. Since the incident took place on April 9, 1987, the offence was not committed under section 22C of the 1954 Act. 25.. In view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs I find myself in agreement with the honourable Technical Member with regard to the conclusion contained in paragraph 13 of his judgment. MILAP CHANDRA JAIN (Chairman).-I agree with the conclusions. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 459 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fers to the effect that such duty will be refunded to the consignor. In our judgment, considering the rule in any manner whatsoever, the said situation does not give any dent to the clear liability spelt out from the provisions of the Act and the Rules, re-emphasised by the decision of the Full Bench Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1993 89 STC 106 (Ker). All that the provision speaks in relation to the refund of the duty paid to the consignor, it is obvious as daylight, is that the liability is not synonymous with payment and refund in regard thereto. For all the above reasons we hold that the question in these revision cases is fully and neatly covered by the decision of the Full Bench Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1993 89 STC 106 (Ker). The submissions referring to the amended rules do not take out the matter of the rigour of the Full Bench decision. Accordingly these tax revision cases stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
