|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 507 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of tax applicable. During the enquiry the assessee itself admitted that it is a raw material used for the manufacture of mosaic tiles. This article is used in the present case to soften the raw materials mixed with cement, sand, oxide, etc., while manufacturing mosaic tiles. Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer treated the goods as a raw material used for the manufacture of mosaic tiles and thereby applied the rate of tax at 10 per cent. This is a finding of fact which is approved by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal found that magnesite powder is used as colour and polishes which will come under entry 72 of the First Schedule which is taxable at 10 per cent. Our conclusion therefore is that the rate of tax applied by the authorities below is correct and proper in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 3216 of 1992 in T.R.C. No. 23 of 1992 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 506 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... Tax v. KEC International Ltd.) rejected the application agreeing with the Tribunal s order rejecting the reference as excise duty had not been recovered by the seller from the purchaser. The Supreme Court by its order dated October 19, 1995 summarily dismissed the petition No. 22576 of 1994 for special leave to appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court dated February 23, 1993. 23.. In view of the foregoing discussion it is held that Central excise duty not paid by the purchaser and reimbursed to the respondent by the Central Government is not part of sale price and CST is not leviable thereon. The question of interest and penalty consequently does not arise. The assessment orders dated November 20, 1987 pertaining to 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and dated December 10, 1987 pertaining to 1985-86 and 1986-87 cannot stand and in the event have been correctly set aside. 24.. The applications for revision are hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Applications dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 505 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... in two years from March 31, 1993, i.e., by March 31, 1995. But the assessment order shows that it was completed on July 18, 1995. Here Shri J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative, is fair enough to concede that the assessment was made beyond permissible time-limit. Therefore, without further elaboration of the point we hold that the impugned assessment was made in contravention of the provision contained in section 11(2a) and is liable to be quashed. 14.. In the result, the application succeeds. The impugned assessment order dated July 18, 1995 for the four quarters ending on March 31, 1993 is quashed. It is also declared that provision of section 6D of the 1941 Act is not applicable to the activities involved in making the cinema slides, translite, bromide prints and quarter tone prints. The interim order passed on November 8, 1995 is made absolute. No order as to costs. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 503 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re, the burden of proving that the assessee was carrying on the business of selling or supplying would be upon the sales tax authorities. Hence, we find it difficult to apply the ratio of the aforesaid decisions at the stage of calling upon the petitioners to register themselves as dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. As already pointed out even if the petitioners are registered as dealers, the burden of proving that the petitioners carried on the business of selling or supplying the rubber will be upon the sales tax authorities. Therefore, this aspect of the matter is kept open to be considered in the course of assessment proceedings. 4.. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss the writ petitions. However, we make it clear that this shall not be taken to have affected the right of the petitioners to claim that their transactions are not liable to sales tax and the assessing authorities are required to decide such an issue. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 502 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nd 189 of the said Rules are valid subject to observations in this judgment in respect of transporters. We have already given directions in regard to the grievances of the applicants in respect of individual cases of alleged illegal actions of the respondents. 27.. The application is thus allowed in part. Interim order dated September 26, 1995, and the clarificatory order dated December 15, 1995 are made absolute to the extent the same are in conformity with this judgment. No order for cost. After the judgment is delivered, Mr. K.K. Saha, learned advocate for the respondents prays for stay of the judgment and order for 12 weeks. Mrs. Swapna Das, learned advocate for the applicants has no objection, but she suggests that the stay may be for only 8 weeks. Having regard to the complexity of this case, the operation of this judgment and order is stayed for 12 weeks. S.N. Mukherjee (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 501 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... to carry on the business of the firm. He was allowed the benefit of section 5CC of the Act. These decisions of the Rajasthan High Court enlighten us on the position of law with regard to the rights and liabilities of a partnership firm as also of the partners. These decisions of the Rajasthan High Court enlighten us on the position of law with regard to the rights and liabilities of a partnership firm as also of the partners. These are distinguishable on facts from the case in hand wherein a manufacturing unit which before the expiry of the period of 5 years, for which the benefit could be claimed, was transferred by the transferor-firm to the transferor-firm namely, the respondent-firm. We uphold the impugned orders dated August 1, 1994 (petitions Nos. 57 of 1955, 58 of 1995, 59 of 1995 and 1637 of 1995) and orders dated March 15, 1994 (petitions Nos. 29 of 1995, 4 of 1995 and 28 of 1995) and dismiss the revision petitions. We make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 500 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... down under section 11(5) of the Act. It is also pointed out that another notice proposing assessment at a gross turnover of Rs. 6,00,000 was also issued within time and, therefore, the assessment was not time-barred. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it appears that the two questions sought to be referred, required determination. Therefore, the Sales Tax Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to this Court for opinion 1.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessment made for the year 1981-82 was time-barred under section 11(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act? 2.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sales tax was not leviable on the sales made by the assessee during the assessment year 1981-82 on the ground that the assessee was dealing in tax-free items like dori, wicks and textile goods, as specified in Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act? Application allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 499 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ad been shown in the stocks register. On a reading of section 36(6) of the Act, we find, prima facie, that a case is made out and a question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal. Interpretation of a provision of an Act normally gives rise to a question of law unless the same is concluded by a judgment of Supreme Court of India or of the jurisdictional High Court. No judgment, either of the Supreme Court or of this Court, was cited by the counsel for the parties interpreting section 36(6) of the Act. Assessee has claimed three questions, which are overlapping in nature. It would suffice to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this Court along with the statement of the case, for the opinion of this Court Whether the Ld. Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty was legally imposed under section 36(6) while admitting that there was no surplus stock not accounted for in the registers or accounts? Ordered accordingly. Application allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 498 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uarter. When there were two periods prescribed in law, one for the deposit of tax in cash and the other for payment through a cheque, there can be a situation, as stated earlier, where an assessee, while availing of the benefit of a larger period, may eventually find it difficult to do so and thereby commit a bona fide default. Each case has to be examined on merits. Every default, howsoever small or negligible, need not invite levy of penal interest or imposition of penalty. In the case of the petitioner-company, the delay does not appear to be such which would warrant the exercise of unfair and unjust discretion and the creation of a huge demand of interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 7,66,422. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the orders levying interest and imposing penalty for the second and third quarters of the assessment year 1995-96 are quashed. The respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the petitionercompany by way of costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 497 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or dehydrated. A plain reading of the G.O., extracted above, makes it clear that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has exempted tax payable under the Act on the sales of dressed chicken other than canned, preserved or dehydrated. It is nobody s case that the chicken in question is canned, preserved or dehydrated. It is a dressed chicken. No doubt the words used are, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from the tax payable under the said Act the sales of dressed chicken , tax leviable under section 6-A of the Act is also tax under the Act. What is sale by the vendor of the respondent-dealers is purchase in the hands of the said dealers. Therefore, under G.O. Ms. No. 60, if the transaction of the sale by the vendor in favour of the dealers is exempted, the same transaction cannot be taxed as being purchase by the dealers-assessees. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision cases, but without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 496 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad v. Sanicons 1980 45 STC 234 held that a water meter which was used only to measure or record the consumption of water by a consumer could not be treated as a water supply fitting and, therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of the entry 102 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act. Sri Sambasiva Rao, J., honourable Chief Justice (as he then was) speaking for the Bench opined that water meters would either fall under entry 83 as machinery or under general goods. In view of the above pronouncements, we are inclined to the view that the electric meters would be machines within the meaning of entry 83 before the amendment of entry 38, that is, for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1982-83. For the above reasons, we dismiss T.R.C. Nos. 127 and 195 of 1990 and allow T.R.C. Nos. 185 and 206 of 1990. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. T.R.C. Nos. 185 and 206 allowed and 127 and 195 dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 495 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... achines, calculating machines, teleprinters and teleprinting machines and duplicating machines, etc. The calculating machine, as commonly understood, in common parlance, is different from electronic calculator. In the market if somebody asks for calculating machine, nobody will give electronic calculator and vice versa. Now a reading of entry No. 38(v) would show that it specifically deals with electronic systems, instruments, apparatus, appliances including electronic cash registering, etc. So electronic instrument which takes in its fold electronic calculator is specifically dealt with in clause (v) of entry No. 38. Indeed clause (v) specifically deals with electronic systems and electronic goods. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that electronic calculators are taxable under entry No. 38(v). We, therefore, confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision case, but in the circumstances without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 494 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt with clean hands. For the reasons and discussion made above, no case has been made out by the writ petitioner to justify the interference of the impugned orders passed by the respondents concerned. 20.. In the result, these three (3) writ petitions have no merit and the same stand dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 3,000 to the respondents within a period of one month from today. 21.. Before I part with this case, I am constrained to make the following observation in the existing facts and circumstances of this case It is made clear that this judgment and order shall not stand on the way of the appellate authority, i.e., the 3rd respondent (the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura) in deciding the said appeals, viz., (1) Appeal Case No. 124/Ch-IV of 1995, (2) Appeal Case No. 125/Ch-IV of 1995 and (3) Appeal Case No. 126/Ch-IV of 1995 on its merit. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 493 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1989 75 STC 141 (1989) 8 APSTJ 69, with respect we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the abovesaid judgment. We may point out that in Jadhavjee Laljee s case 1989 74 STC 201 (AP) (1988) 6 APSTJ 285, a similar contention was raised relying upon another judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhojmal and Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1982 50 STC 36, but the Division Bench of our High Court did not agree with the reasoning of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and observed that the logical consequences flowing from the ratio of that judgment was that all second and subsequent sales would be exempt from tax where the first inter-State sale of such goods was exempt, and that could not have been the intention underlying the Act. With respect, we adopt the same reasoning of the learned Judges. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the T.R.C. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 492 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessment dated November 25, 1988 for the period from July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 imposing the liability of payment of entry tax. 33.. Misc. Civil Case No. 373 of 1991 is, thus, disposed of with answer as noted above but without any orders as to costs. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary. Misc. Petitions Nos. 1453 of 1989 and 277 of 1990 are allowed in terms indicated above. Appropriate writs be issued in conformity with this order. We, however, make no orders as to costs in these writ petitions and leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Security cost, if deposited, shall be refunded after verification. 34.. Misc. Civil Case No. 373 of 1991 is thus disposed of and Misc. Petitions No. 1453 of 1989 and 277 of 1990 are allowed. 35.. Retain this order in the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 373 of 1991 and place its copy each in the records of Misc. Petitions, as particularised above for ready reference.
-
1996 (8) TMI 491 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der dated November 23, 1990 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Ranchi Division, Ranchi and following the earlier decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1763 of 1991(R) remit the matter back to him with a direction to reconsider the matter in the light of what has been stated hereinabove. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes within a fortnight from today with a copy of this order. The Joint Commissioner (or any other competent authority) will, if necessary hear the petitioner and will pass a final order, in accordance with law within one month from the date of the petitioners appearance. It may further be observed that in case of reimbursement, the petitioners would be also entitled to any statutory interests, as provided under the Act and the Rules. 12.. In the result, this application is allowed. No order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 490 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... material used in the manufacturing process. The nature of the transaction, thus, clearly indicates that no sale was involved in the transaction and it is essentially a transaction for the performance of the contract for works and labour, i.e., for the manufacture and supply of the bricks and the tiles from the material supplied by the department and not a contract for sale. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was not justified in holding the transaction as the sale and the petitioner (appellant) as a dealer . 35.. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed. The judgment dated April 22, 1992 passed by the learned single Judge is quashed and set aside and the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-appellant are allowed and it is held that the transaction involved in the present case is not a sale exigible to tax and the petitioner-appellant is not a dealer for the transaction under the contract. Appeals allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 489 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. The delay was accordingly, condoned. 21.. In view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the decisions cited above, in my considered view the Tribunal has erred in taking the view that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the dispute involved in the appeal, the delay deserved to be condoned at the hands of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly, set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The order dismissing the appeal as time-barred is also set aside. The Tribunal shall give effect to this judgment and order as required under section 11(8) of the Act and will pass appropriate consequential orders accordingly. 22.. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 488 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . As such no sale is involved in this transaction. It is essentially a transaction contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale . Though there was a transfer of the bricks and tiles to the department but there was no sale because it was not the property of the contractor at any time and always remained the property of the Government/ department. 19.. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was not justified in applying the ratio and principle of Sunder Das Jindal and Company s case 1984 56 STC 89 (Raj), in the present case and holding that the transaction is a sale . 20.. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The judgment dated April 17, 1984, passed by the learned single Judge is quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant is allowed and it is held that the transaction involved in the present case is not a sale exigible to sales tax. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 487 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uthority is required to pass a speaking order, recording its reasons in support thereof. Failure to do so vitiates the order, being against the principles of natural justice. Such orders cannot stand the test of scrutiny in any further proceedings available to the party concerned. Such orders are further required to be communicated to the concerned party. In this case, as observed earlier, Higher Level Screening Committee passed the order, annexure P5, without recording its reasons. 5.. In view of the above, we quash the order, annexure P5, passed by the Higher Level Screening Committee and remand the case back to it for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a fresh order. Fresh order be passed within two months of the receipt of production of a certified copy of this order, by passing a speaking order, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
