|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 408 Records
-
1996 (4) TMI 458 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the facts arising in this case in the light of various judicial pronouncements cited supra, we are of the opinion that the secretary to the Government was not correct in exercising the jurisdiction under section 37 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, inasmuch as the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act. In fact the interpretation given by the secretary to Government is out of context and we cannot read something which is not in the statute book. IN view of the foregoing discussions we set aside the order passed by the secretary to the Government in Order No. 1/96/DC dated January 29, 1966 and restore the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in exempting the sales turnover of parag zarda by the assessee. 12.. In the result, the order passed by the secretary to the Government is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 457 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1987 65 STC 243 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Adarsh Paper and Board Manufacturing Company). In this case, the entry under the U.P. Sales Tax Act read as paper of all kinds.....meant...for any other purpose and in that context, His Lordship held that mill board had to be taxed under the concerned notification as paper . But in the present case, there is no such entry in item No. 15. As against this, all the packing materials have been enumerated and particularised and this mill board is not included in any of those entries even if we try to interpret this packing material in a liberal sense. Though the Commissioner has clarified that it is a material used for packing material, but nevertheless, the Legislature has not stepped in to enumerate it as one of the packing materials. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. 5.. Hence we answer this reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
-
1996 (4) TMI 456 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , that the assessee had clearly established that the transaction in question is an inter-State transaction between the Madras head office and the suppliers of rubber in Kerala and the fact that the payment had been effected by the local unit to the suppliers is not decisive of the nature of the transaction. The Appellate Tribunal also according to us rightly endorsed the said view. The assessing authority according to us had a closed mind on this question as he thought that the fact of payment of the amount by the local unit is decisive of the nature of the transaction. We accordingly hold that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal on this point is perfectly valid and justified. 12.. It is made clear that it is open to the assessee, if so advised, to make a claim as provided under section 46A of the Act before the assessing authority to get refund of the tax erroneously paid on the purchase turnover from the selling dealer. These tax revision cases are disposed of as above.
-
1996 (4) TMI 455 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y be possible for the State to make such regulating measures, but to make a person liable who cannot legitimately be brought under the provisions of the Act, and to maintain the register under the Act and to penalise for evasion of tax for which he is not remotely connected, cannot be countenanced. There is no proximate connection of the carrier/transporter with the sale and purchase of the goods or evasion of tax. It is a principal who is primarily responsible for evasion of tax if there is any, for which a carrier cannot be held responsible. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the State and the same is overruled. 9.. In the result, we declare the provisions of sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Act and rule 75 of the Rules as ultra vires of entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the notices issued by the respondents dated May 10, 1995 (annexures P/1 and P/2) are also quashed. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 454 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal has further observed that the factual matrix is the situation of the natural inference relating to the corresponding sales. It is further observed in its pungent way that to understand commission as ex gratia payment is so hard that it is not possible to have a track on its consequence. 11.. The Tribunal has also considered, with regard to the addition of Rs. 13,893 the vital aspect that the two payments are by cheques relating to Messrs. Jyothi Traders. It has observed pinpointedly that at least in regard to the payment received in cash the same could have been handed over to the sister concern in trust. 12.. In view of the above situation apart from the position that the questions relate to the situation of finality of factual positions, even if they are independently examined it would not be possible to reach any other conclusion that the one consistently arrived at by the three authorities. For the above reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 453 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al as contemplated under section 5(7) of the Act, a contention having been already accepted before by the authority itself. 10.. The travel of the proceedings before the Tribunal also refers to a specific contention and even then inspite of the same being prominent as ground No. 2a as reproduced in the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the situation satisfies the requirements of section 5(7) stated above. 11.. Thus it would appear that the necessary edifice to justify the initiation by a situation requiring satisfaction of section 19 of the Act is found lacking. The proceedings are reopened contrary to the statutory provisions as stated above. 12.. In this view of the matter the entire proceedings would have to be termed as being without jurisdiction by reason of absence of satisfaction of the requirements of section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and consequently are hereby quashed and set aside. Revision case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted purchases which have suffered tax leaving no room for inference for loss of Revenue attributable to suppressions alleged. The Tribunal was careful enough to observe that the situation would have been entirely different had excess stock been detected which would point to purchase suppression. In that event the position of the assessee would have been different. The Tribunal considered the explanation of the assessee with regard to the shortage in stock of arrack. The explanation is quoted ad verbatim in the order of the Tribunal. 7.. If at all for all these reasons the two authorities have considered the question of addition due to shortage, a question wholly factual, it is more than difficult to think of interference on the basis that the question is erroneously considered. Even the question that is framed in this revision case does not speak anything other than the factual aspect of the situation. For the above reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 451 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proached the Board of Revenue for sending a reference before this Court and the aforesaid question was framed by the Board of Revenue and the same was sent to this Court for answer. 3.. We have examined the matter and find that the aforesaid question is not properly framed. As a matter of fact, the question arises in this matter is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified to determine the market value-cum-sale price at Rs. 87.50 per metric tonne by including the transportation charge in it. Similar question came up before this Court between the same parties and this Court in M.C.C. No. 463 of 1987 (Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax), decided on January 5, 1996, answered that question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by holding that the transport charge has to be excluded from the entry tax. Accordingly, the aforesaid question is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (4) TMI 450 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... risdictional requirement of establishment of necessary factual matrix. If this is the manner in which the authorities proceed to levy and impose tax merely on the strength of wild inference, all that we can place on record is our concern in regard thereto. It is important to note that but for entry No. 114 coming on the statute in 1990 with effect from September 16, 1980, the undisputed position is that for the assessment year 1980-81 the position was neatly covered in favour of the assessee relating to the exemption from sales tax and what has been the promptness of the authority is to jump for levy of tax taking advantage of the retrospectivity of entry No. 114 by an attempt to have a leap in the dark. For the above reasons yet on different reasons showing lack of factual material we confirm the order dated September 16, 1980 deleting the amount of Rs. 59,855.50 from assessable turnover. Revision case stands disposed of as above as having been dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 449 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ted by way of hiring charges cannot be termed as a taxable turnover coming under section 3-A. He would submit that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act defines goods as movable properties and other properties attached to earth which are agreed to be severed before sale or under contract of sale. In the instant case, the oil tank of very huge capacity are permanently imbedded in earth and they are immovable properties as defined in the Transfer of Property Act and they are not goods to be hired for use. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not seriously opposed by the Government Advocate. Accepting the plea of the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice is quashed in so far as it relates to hiring charges of tanks. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 4th day of April, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 448 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... f properties. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney-General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, 1995 83 Comp Cas 804 AIR 1994 SC 2179, such an order against a relative, who was the detenu s brother in this case, cannot be maintained, as the Supreme Court has held in very clear terms that the intention of the SAFEM (FOP) A was not to forfeit properties of relatives, but only those properties which are traceable or relatable to a detenu or a convict. The apex court has gone to the extent of saying that illegally acquired properties of relatives cannot be subjected to forfeiture, unless they can be traced to the detenu. Interestingly, there is not even a hint that illegal activities were being carried on by the affected person, Chandalal Kalidas Mehta. For all these reasons, we are unable to uphold this type of order. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated April 30, 1979, passed under section 7(9) by the Competent Authority, Ahmedabad.
-
1996 (4) TMI 447 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and preparation Phensedyl being excepted under Item No. 35 of the Notification reproduced above is out of the reach of this section. The mere apprehension of the prosecution that this drug, which is meant for the treatment of dry cough is also being misused by drug addicts, is not enough in the eye of law to bring the same within the mischief of Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, even all the allegations contained in the First Information Report in question are assumed to be correct, no offence under Section 21 of the Act is made out and the First Information Report in question is liable to be quashed. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. First Information Report No. 48, dated 154-1995 registered at Police Station, Ghal Khurad under Sections 21/61/85 of the Act and the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof, if any, are hereby quashed. The seized goods in this case if not already released, are directed to bereturned to the petitioner forthwith.
-
1996 (4) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the bazars governed by the provisions of the Act stand vested in the State under Section 4(a) of the Act?
Whether hats or bazars, are synonymous of market commonly understood in common language or is a hat or bazar as understood in oriental language of conducting daily or bi-weekly or weekly bazar etc?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Though other buildings situated in the estate, other than those vasted under Section 4 (a) read with Sections 7A, 7B, and 7C with in the estate held by an intermediary/tenure-holder, stand vested in the State, are deemed to be settled on the intermediary either under Section 5 read with Section 7 or Section 6 subject to reasonable rent determine by the Collector under Section 7, the rules made under the Act and under all other relevant provisions operating in that behalf. But this interpretation will not have any effect on the right, title and interest held by any other individual owner whose property was not take over under the Act. We hold that the Full Bench division is not vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.
-
1996 (4) TMI 445 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the conduct of some of Superintending Engineers in passing some of the bills on multi slab basis can be pleaded as an estopped against the defendants and can form the basis of plaintiffs' case?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The answer to this question must be in the negative. A particular officer for various reasons may pass a bill on multi slab basis or a contractor may be able to get one of his bills passed at a rate other than the rate given in written contract in connivance with the passing authority. But when a dispute arises and the matter comes to court for adjudication no decree can be granted to the plaintiffs on that basis and the plaintiffs would be required to establish that the defendants in written contract agreed to grant the rate on multi slab basis. That has not been established in the case in hand.
Therefore Division Bench of the High Court wholly erred in law in allowing the plaintiffs' appeal and granting the decree accepting plaintiffs' claim that the rate has to be paid on multi slab basis.
-
1996 (4) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine - Import licence ... ... ... ... ..... ginal copy of the Bill of Entry. The Assistant Collector had assessed the value at US 1.10 per Kg. On this basis the value of the imported goods was found to be in excess of the limit of the licence. Meanwhile, the goods had been provisionally released. Show cause notice was waived. The Deputy Collector passed an order holding that the goods were liable for confiscation and appropriated Rs. 65,000/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation and Rs. 65,000/- towards personal penalty. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order regarding penalty. Present appeal relates to the appropriation of Rs. 65,000/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation. 3. emsp Ordinarily, the value assessed on the consignment will be only for the purpose of duty and not for the licence purpose unless there is adequate material to show deliberate underinvoicing. There is no such material in the present case. We therefore set aside the order appropriating Rs. 65,000/- towards redemption fine. Appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 443 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal - Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Department has failed to discharge the burden of proof rested on it. rdquo 21. emsp Having regard to the above discussions, we confirm the demand for duty as well as confirm the duty as indicated in the impugned order. We also confirm the order of confiscation of 7 rolls of tread rubber weighing 229.500 kgs. 22. emsp Having regard to the above discussions and the totality of the facts and circumstances, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 3 lacs to Rs. 1 lac (rupees one lac) on M/s. Shalimar Rubber Industries, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each on S/Shri Thomas Varghese, K.V. Kuriakose and K. Kuruvilla Varghese. We do not see any reason to interfere with the imposition of penalty on Shri Boban P. Alias and confiscation of plant and machinery and redemption thereof on payment of the proposed fine. 23. emsp The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (4) TMI 442 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Adjournment ... ... ... ... ..... clarified that in the meanwhile, the order of the Tribunal will be given effect to and consequential benefit will be granted without delay. He further stated that in view of the above position, the matter may be adjourned sine die to avoid repeated appearance, with liberty to mention. The learned DR has no objection. 2. emsp In view of the above position, the matter is adjourned sine die with liberty to both the sides to mention the matter as soon as the judgment of the High Court is available. A copy of this order may be given to both sides.
-
1996 (4) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Restrictions on payments ... ... ... ... ..... peals and against the conviction in the three appeals the respondent-accused filed the appeals before the Sessions Court, which are now pending before that Court. He would also contend that the trial court while convicting the accused in those three cases sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on each count and so he requested on this basis to impose the same amount in these cases also. However, Mr. K. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor requested this Court to impose the fine amount at the rate of 40 per cent, of the amount involved in each case. However, the Special Public Prosecutor admits that against the sentence of imposing the fine of Rs. 500 in the other cases, he has not preferred any appeal. As such I feel the ends of justice would be met if a fine of Rs. 500 is imposed on the respondent in each of the cases and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. As such the appeals are allowed. Time for payment of fine is four weeks from the date of this order.
-
1996 (4) TMI 427 - SUPREME COURT
Whether cycle rims are declared goods or not?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Applying the test of common parlance, a rim which is admittedly round and an essential part of the wheel of the cycle would come within the said entry (xiv) and being declared goods the same cannot be taxed at the rate in excess of 4 per cent. The view taken by the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the judgment under appeal gives a very narrow meaning to the said entry and cannot be upheld.
Thus the judgment of the High Court is set aside and it is held that the appellant is only entitled to be taxed at 4 per cent on the sale price of the cycle rims.
-
1996 (4) TMI 426 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the levy of penalty under section 14(3) of the Act is sustainable in the facts of this case or not?
Held that:- With respect to the assessment year 1973-74, the High Court has dismissed the tax revision case filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessment in that case was a best judgment assessment inasmuch as the Commercial Tax Officer had added a sum of rupees three thousand and odd to figure disclosed in the return. We see no reason to differ from the opinion of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent of the said assessment year.
........
|
