|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 280 Records
-
1996 (6) TMI 336 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... not justifiable. However, in view of the notification dated March 7, 1994 and the goods purchased having been sold in the course of inter-State sales the purchase tax, penalty and interest relatable to the sale in 1990-91 made to M/s. Brittania Industries Ltd., of the value of Rs. 35,08,540.50 and the Rs. 22,37,405 worth of purchases made on the petitioner s own account and subsequently sold in inter-State sales and to the sale in 1991-92 made to M/s. ITC Ltd., Secunderabad and to Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation, Ahmedabad of the value of Rs. 9,40,097.08 is set aside. As admittedly, the petitioner did not charge or collect purchase tax he would be entitled to the refund with interest as prescribed of any amount deposited by way of tax, interest and penalty realised from him under these assessment orders with respect to the purchase transactions in question. 29.. The revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (6) TMI 335 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ied the stampings and laminations as raw material. Keeping these findings of the Tribunal in view, we shall now read clauses (iii) and (iv) of item 38 of the First Schedule. Item 38 includes all kinds of electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances and under the caption that is to say enumerates certain specified goods. It only means that the electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances, as specified under clauses (i) to (iv), fall under item 38. On a perusal of clauses (iii) and (iv) in the light of the findings of the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the stampings and laminations fall under any one of these clauses. If that be so, in our view, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that they fall under the general category and are taxable as such under section 5 at the rate of 4 per cent. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the revision filed by the State is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 334 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , in our view, whatever statement of facts is made therein (form E) or in a separate statement duly signed as a supplement or part thereof, would amount to a declaration within the meaning of section 7-A(2). In this view of the matter we cannot accept the contention that form E is only a form of return and that the separate statement filed duly signed by the dealer forms part of form E and cannot be treated as a declaration or statement. Even assuming that form E is merely a form of return which does not fall under declaration or document , the petitioner cannot escape the penalty as a finding is recorded by the first appellate authority that the petitioner filed false voucher in support of the claim for refund. For the above reasons, we hold that the penalty was rightly levied on the petitioner. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal under revision but for different reasons. There is no merit in the T.R.C. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 333 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... paid in an earlier assessment year, viz., 1979-80. As the amount in question did not relate to the relevant assessment year, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim. However, we endorse the observation of the Tribunal that the assessee may claim relief from the assessing authority. Sri Venkatanarayana, however, contends that the Tribunal made an observation that the claim can be made by way of a revision, but, in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lakshmaiah Setty and Sons 1994 94 STC 190 the petitioner cannot file any revision. We may point out that the word revision appears to have been used somewhat loosely by the Tribunal. What all the Tribunal meant was by filing a claim to reopen the previous assessment to which the trade discount relates to. That right is left open to the petitioner. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. T.R.C. is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 332 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, who are prohibited from collecting any sum by way of tax from another person. It is difficult for us to accept the contention that in the absence of these prohibitions, a dealer or an individual is entitled to collect sales tax from persons at his choice and will and at the rate he chooses. In our view, even in the absence of section 30-B, no person including a dealer can arrogate to himself the power to collect tax on the sale or purchase of goods which the Government has exempted under section 9 of the Act from others. In other words, if no tax is payable under the Act, no individual or dealer can collect tax on such goods. On the ground that section 6-A of the Act was not considered in Sri Parvati Parameswara Cables v. Government of A.P. 1995 99 STC 110 (AP) (1995) 1 ALT 727, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken in that case. Consequently, we find no meirits in the writ petition it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 331 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by limitation. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The purpose of section 20(3) of the Act in prescribing the limitation of four years is for exercising the revisionary jurisdiction which has been interpreted to mean initiation of the proceedings and passing a final order by the revising authority. In this view of the matter, the service of the order of the revising authority after March 29, 1984, on which date four years period comes to an end, but within a reasonable period from the date of passing of the order, will not be relevant. It is only when the order of revision was served with an abnormal delay and the delay is not explained, the presumption of the order not having been passed on the date it purports to have been passed, would arise. This is not such a case where such presumption can be raised. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the T.R.C., it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 330 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal. The Tribunal also referred to the provisions of rule 32(17) with regard to the contention that the sale bill is not required to accompany the transport. The Tribunal has considered that there is no material on record to prove that the sale was effected from a wholesale dealer to a retailer and has observed in this connection that even though column V(a) of the delivery note requires furnishing of details of bill numbers and date in case of sale, such requirements were found conspicuous by absence in the duplicate delivery note. The Tribunal has also found that neither the original nor even the triplicate copy of the delivery note is tendered on record and in regard thereto the explanation that it is lost irrecoverably is also not convincing. 8.. We find that all the authorities have consistently and rightly taken the view that this is not a transaction of sale. For the above reasons the tax revision case stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 329 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ravention or misuse of the forms, same can be taken care of at the time of assessment. Mr. Lal s apprehension is that by the time the assessment is done, the mischief is already completed, and there may not be any tangible result achieved by raising the demand for contravention/mis-utilisation of the form. There may be cases where the result would be as apprehended by Mr. Lal. But the position in law as stands now cannot come to the rescue of the Revenue, in declining to issue the forms. 4.. In view of the detailed reasons, indicated in Anurag Steel Industries case 1993 90 STC 359 (Orissa), we direct the Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam I Circle, Berhampur (opposite party No. 3) to issue form I-B to the petitioner as prayed for by it forthwith. It would be appropriate if the assessments are done forthwith, so that the likelihood of the mischief, if any, as conceived by Mr. Lal gets obliterated. The writ application is allowed. No costs. A. DEB, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 328 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ler. In the case of an offence consisting of evasion of tax the tax payable by the dealer is the amount of tax sought to be evaded. After the composition of the offence the dealer cannot contend that the amount paid by him as compounding fee is inclusive of the tax so payable by him. The words in addition to the tax so payable contained in clause (a) do not carry such a meaning. It appears to us, those words are included in the clause as an abundant measure, that is to say, no dealer is absolved from payment of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the payment of compounding fee. That being the position, the dealer cannot claim that the amount paid by him as compounding fee shall be deducted from the total tax due as per the assessment order. 3.. In view of what is said above, the contention advanced by the dealer in this revision petition has no merit and it is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, we dismiss the tax revision case at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 327 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... cheme in the Official Gazette, and the said authority shall be competent to entertain such application, on sufficient grounds, even after the said period of limitation. This period of 180 days expired even before the application (annexure 1) was moved by the petitioner under the Deferment Scheme, 1987. The Deferment Scheme, 1989 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on July 6, 1989. The period of 180 days expired in the first week of January, 1990. As already observed above, the application (annexure 1) itself was moved after February 1, 1990. No ground has been mentioned in the writ petition for entertaining his optionapplication after such an inordinary delay. 15.. Under these facts and circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled for getting an opportunity to opt for the Deferment Scheme, 1989 before the decision, annexure 4, was taken. The writ petition deserves dismissal. 16.. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 326 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ds include packing materials like tin containers. 5.. Since, the packing materials were used to pack the insecticides and pesticides which comes under Schedule I, the issue of declaration in form XVII for purchase of those packing materials would certainly be covered by subsection (3) of section 3. The reasoning of the assessing officer is contrary to law and it cannot be sustained. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, the learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that the tin containers would be eligible for concessional levy at the most, only if they are used for containing the insecticides or pesticides but not when they are used as packing materials for a consignment of packed insecticides and pesticides. This contention is sustained. 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 this Tribunal on the 10th day of June, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 325 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act, i.e., assessment of tax. Any order passed under section 27 would be appealable under section 61 of the Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no alternative or efficacious remedy available to it. 11.. In view of the statement made by the managing director of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is being paid by him on his own free will and accord, it appears to be doubtful that the same was obtained by coercion or undue influence. Since the matter is yet to be adjudicated upon by the concerned authority, therefore, any observation made by this Court should not be taken as expressing opinion on the merits of the respondent s case. The authority shall still be at liberty to examine whether the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was rightly recovered by them. 12.. On account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit or substance in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 324 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and that the respondents should be directed to permit the first petitioner to avail of the said benefit under the 1979 Package Scheme during the current year by making adjustments in sales tax liability of the first petitioner, it is not possible to accede to the request made by Mr. Joshi as the said eligibility certificate dated 16th March, 1984 was issued having the validity for the period from 19th March, 1984 to 18th March, 1991. However, since the petitioner is made to suffer the loss of the benefit due to wrongful and illegal action on the part of the first respondent, it would be just and fair if the first respondent, by adopting such modality as permissive in law, allows the benefit up to the sum of Rs. 10,77,220 to the petitioner in the current sales tax assessment. In the result the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (c) thereof. The first respondent shall pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 323 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Therefore, a place, where cool drinks including fruit juice and aerated water are supplied and icecream is served, is within the meaning of restaurant in its extended meaning. And, secondly because from a perusal of the G.O., it appears that the intention of the Governor is to grant exemption in favour of such dealers who are running eating houses, hotels, restaurants, etc., whose total turnover per year is less than rupees two lakhs, and if that be so, a dealer running a cool drink house having turnover of less than rupees two lakhs would fall within the benefit of exemption granted by the aforesaid G.O., from payment of sales tax on the turnover. For these reasons, we are of the view that cool drink house, ice-cream parlours, etc., do fall within the benefit of exemption granted in G.O. Ms. No. 1025. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. Both the tax revision cases are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tant case, a finding is recorded to the effect that the FCI was distributing the fertilizers as per allotment made by the Agriculture Department to the States or their nominees and that there was no profit-motive. In view of those findings it cannot but be held that it was not a dealer during the relevant period for purposes of exigibility of tax under the Act. In Joint Director of Food v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 38 STC 329 (SC) while confirming the judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court laid down that the systematic activity of buying foodgrains and fertilizers and selling them by the State, although in fulfilment of a beneficent national policy was nevertheless trade or business but the assessee would become a dealer under the Act only if there was a profit-motive in the sales effected by the assessee to the Andhra Pradesh State. 3.. For the above reasons, the tax revision case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 321 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 82 49 STC 192 (Kar) the agreements like the present one was held to be an agreement for sale, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. 1977 40 STC 603 1977 2 SCR 149, which is no more a good law. 11.. Accordingly, it is held that the Forest Department or its authorities were neither authorised to collect any amount as sales tax from the contractors like the petitioner not they can retain or refuse to refund the amounts so collected. Accordingly, the order No. A-3/SAS/CR-242/93-94 dated December 13, 1993, at annexure J , is quashed with a further direction to the respondents to refund the entire amounts collected from the petitioner as sales tax within two months from today with interest at 12 per cent per annum to be calculated from the date of such collections. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,500 to be paid along with the aforesaid amounts. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 320 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n of India 1983 ELT 1566 (SC) AIR 1977 SC 597 as follows There is, however, no estoppel in law against a party in a taxation matter. In order to clear the goods for the customs, the appellants agents may have given the classification in accordance with the wishes of the authorities or they may even be under some misapprehension. In the light of the above principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the mere fact that the appellants conceded that certain ball-bearings were sold to industrial machinery by itself is not a ground to hold that they would come within entry 7. On the materials discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge was right in holding that ball-bearing would not come within the purview of entry 7 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act. In view of what is stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of learned singe Judge and accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 319 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... C.P. does not amount to making of an application within the meaning of rule 11(3) of the 1941 Rules. Therefore, the C.T.O. was under no legal obligation to make amendment effective from the alleged date of posting of petition for amendment of R.C. under the C.P. As already observed, the application dated March 20, 1992 which undisputedly reached the C.T.O. on March 27, 1992 being the only application before the C.T.O. under the rules he ought to have made the amendment effective from March 27, 1992 (being the date of receipt of application), because the said date may be taken as the date of filing of the application. But the Assistant Commissioner has made the amendment effective from February 20, 1992 which is the date mentioned in the application. However, we do not propose to disturb this order. The application is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 318 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only at the end of the year and not as and when the turnover exceeds the limit to be taxed. A similar contention was raised in Gangadharan v. Additional Sales Tax Officer 1993 91 STC 80 (Ker) but was negatived. It was observed Therefore when once the taxable turnover for the purposes of turnover tax exceeds the limit prescribed, the liability attaches itself at that moment and the dealer becomes liable to pay tax along with the monthly returns . 8.. In the present case, petitioner filed the return admitting the turnover. Liability to pay tax is also conceded. But what is contended is that petitioner was advised that the tax need be paid only at the end of the year. A portion of the amount was paid during the year itself. Hence this is a case where even on the self assessment turnover tax is payable. Hence I do not find any infirmity in exhibits P3 and P5. Original petition is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 7833 of 1991 in O.P. No. 4722 of 1991K dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 317 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erce item. Therefore, the view taken by the Board of Revenue that the scrap was something independent item and which has not suffered the entry tax, cannot be accepted. In fact, the scraps are nothing but remains of the same goods which has already suffered the entry tax and they are being sold as a local goods and they are not something entirely independent of those tubes, rolls and coils purchased by M/s. Steel Tubes of India. The scrap is essentially the same scraps of rolls and coils, therefore, no independent commerce identity is emerged and it cannot be subject to the market tax because under the provision of M.P. General Sales Tax Act and Entry Tax Act, goods can only suffer one point tax and not multi-point tax. Hence, in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Board of Revenue does not appear to be correct. Hence, we answer the aforesaid questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
........
|
