|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 486 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... swered as arise properly on the facts and the questions referred to the High Court........... There is no factual foundation about facts probanda and facts probantia . We, therefore, hold that the plea raised for the first time before the Tribunal was not pure question of law but manifestly depended on investigation into facts as to whether goods were brought in or not. In our view, such a plea is rightly not considered by the Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal committed no error in refusing to entertain such a plea. In view of the aforesaid position, question No. 2, also deserves to be answered in the affirmative. 13.. As a result of the foregoing discussions, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. We make no orders as to costs. However, counsel s fee for each side is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 14.. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1996 (8) TMI 485 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egard to certiorari, as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy and, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute. 3.. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated July 9, 1996 passed in W.P. No. 9309 of 1996 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of assessment made by the respondent on May 13, 1996 in C.S.T. No. 611243/94-95 is quashed reserving liberty to the respondent to proceed in the matter afresh, in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the objections are filed today. We also further direct the appellant to appear before the respondent on 14th August, 1996, without waiting for the notice fixing the date for hearing. On that day, it is open to the respondent to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. The C.M.P. is also disposed of. However, we make no order as to costs. Writ appeals allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 484 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are satisfied that the Tribunal did not commit any error and reached the conclusion which is on firm foundation and is not liable to be dislodged or demolished. Our answer is based on facts. 10.. The non-applicant-assessee placed the material on record to show that there was no mens rea. In view of this position, it is not pertinent to say as to which side had the burden in regard to mens rea. We hold that the Tribunal was right in setting aside the direction about penalty under section 43(1) of the Act. We may add that the question evidently through typographical error has incorporated section 42(1) of the Act whereas the correct provision is section 43(1) of the Act. 11.. In the result, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 12.. This miscellaneous civil case thus, stands decided in the terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 13.. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 483 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... Nor are we impressed with the contention turning on the dealer being an agent (or not) of the State vis-a-vis sales tax and why should the State suspect when it obligates itself to return the moneys to the purchasers? We do not think it is more feasible for ordinary buyers to recover from the common run of dealers small sums than from Government. We expect a sensitive Government not to bluff but to hand back. So, we largely disagree with Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1970 26 STC 254 (SC) 1970 3 SCR 455, while we generally agree with R. Abdul Quader and Co. 1964 15 STC 403 (SC) 1964 6 SCR 967. We must mention that the question as to whether an amount which is illegally collected as sales tax can be forfeited did not arise for consideration in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1970 26 STC 254 (SC) 1970 3 SCR 455. To sum up, we uphold the impugned orders dated October 31, 1995 and dismiss the revision petitions. We make no orders as to cost. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 482 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid reasons, there is no merit in the arguments regarding challenge to the validity of the said provisions and the same is upheld. 6.. Now coming to the question of levy of penalty, the first authority has levied the penalty and the revisional authority has affirmed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to justify that the petitioner-company was registered in M.P., but in the declaration form it has wrongly been written the sales tax number of Gauhati in place of M.P. Therefore, the taxing authority imposed a levy of penalty on the ground that the company did not till declaration form properly. Hence, the findings given by the taxing authority were affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax). This is purely a question of fact, which we are not inclined to examine in an extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 481 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cturing cement. Therefore the orders of assessment were liable to be quashed and no penalty could also be imposed for the same reason. The same judgment was followed by this Court in the case of Maihar Cement v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1995 28 VKN 185. 5.. In the present case also, all the purchases were made for construction of factory and not for purposes of business. The factory commenced production at the end of 1987, and the period for assessment of July 1, 1984 to September 30, 1984 and October 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984, during which these goods were brought for construction of factory. Thus, the petitioners are not exigible to entry tax as the goods were purchased for construction purpose. In that view of the matter, order, annexure A, for demand of entry tax cannot be sustained. Annexure A is therefore quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Security amount if any be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 480 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appeal or the application only after affording a personal hearing. But any order passed after taking into consideration the points raised in the appeal or the application shall not be held to be invalid merely on the ground that no personal hearing had been afforded. This is all the more important in the context of taxation and revenue matters. 8.. So far as the last ground is concerned in my opinion that also is equally fallacious, because admittedly the issue as to whether raw cashew was taxable or not had a bearing on the final assessment which was to be made against the petitioner. But since that question at the relevant time was pending consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 37943 of 1992 no fault can be found on the part of the respondents in deferring the assessment proceedings till the matter was finally adjudicated by this Court. 9.. For the said reasons the writ petition is devoid of any merits, it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 479 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... tion recorded by the officer is of such a nature that it cannot give rise to any reason to suspect that there has been any attempt at evasion of taxes. This being the case we must hold that the officer had reasons to suspect that the dealer was attempting to evade taxes and such reasons have been recorded prior to the act of seizure. As far as the question of the witness is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that the witness was, in fact, biased towards the dealer or the tax officials. We do not find any substance in the argument that the witness was not an independent one or that the absence of his address, under the circumstances, was of any significance. We therefore hold that the seizure of the documents on February 29, 1996 was valid and legal and we also hold that the notice dated March 12, 1996 is also legally valid. The application is dismissed without any order as to cost. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 478 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... led before the Collector was also unproductive of any desired result. An appeal to the Central Government was of no avail. It was found that the Assistant Collector while reversing his earlier order did not give any reasons in support of his order. The reasons given by the Collector were very sketchy and unsatisfactory. This was true of the orders passed in appeal by the Government of India. The apex Court viewed this conduct on the part of the authorities concerned with disfavour. This case is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. As mentioned earlier the Commissioner while giving order of extension for a period of six months did not adjudicate upon the rights and liabilities of the respondent-company. 9.. To sum up, we accept the revision petitions, set aside the order of the Tax Board dated March 12, 1987 and uphold the assessment orders dated March 29, 1982 and the appellate orders dated March 18, 1983. We make no orders as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 477 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ces issued by the supplier M/s. Haryana Leather Chemicals Limited it is seen that the names of the excisable commodities covered by the invoices are lacquers and other varnishes and lacquers . They are lacquers covered by item No. 3210.90 and 3208.30 in chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. From the description of the goods as well as from the items numbers it is clear that these materials are lacquers and therefore they are covered by the Notification No. 759-F.T. dated March 29, 1994 and therefore sales tax permit is required for these items. The fact that these items are allegedly used only in the leather industry is of no relevance, as it is the identity of the goods and not the enduse which has to be considered for deciding upon the exigibility to taxation under the notification. 12.. In the result the application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. S.N. MUKHERJEE (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 476 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... were not used for a purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the declaration. Admittedly, also the goods were used for the purpose mentioned in the declaration albeit with a delay. The delay of 4-5 months is not unreasonable. Installation and commissioning cannot be instantaneous and take time. Section 16(1)(k) was therefore not applicable. 9.. The non-petitioner s case not being covered by the 1985 notification the AA correctly regularated it under the 1989 notification and levied interest thereon under section 11B of the RST Act. The levying of penalty however, in the facts and circumstances of this case was not warranted. 10.. In the result the impugned order of the Board is set aside, the penalty imposed by the AA and upheld by the D.C. (Appeals) and partially reduced by the Board is set aside. The tax and interest levied by the AA and upheld by the D.C. (Appeals) are upheld. 11.. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 475 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is functioning in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In addition to that, the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order under the provisions of the Act. That it is so is not disputed before us. It is also not disputed before us that in the appeal, the appellate authority can examine all the contentions that have been raised in the writ petition. Hence, we decline to entertain this writ petition and hold that the learned single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition and keep open all the contentions to enable the writ petitioner to avail of the remedy under the provisions of the Act. We accordingly, allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated February 27, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11169 of 1985 and dispose of the writ petition, keeping open all the contentions to enable the writ petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, available under the Act. No costs. C.M.P. No. 11253 of 1996 is disposed of. Writ appeal allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... time taken by the High Court in disposing of the matter from the date of the institution of the writ petition. Normally for application of Section 14, the Court dealing with the matter in the first instance, which is the subject of the issue in the later case, must be found to have lack of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature to entertain the matter. However, since the High Court expressly declined to grant relief relegating the petitioner to a suit in civil Court, the petitioner cannot be left remedyless. Accordingly, the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court and this Court obviously pursued diligently and bona fide, needs to be excluded. The petitioner is permitted to issue notice to the Municipality within four weeks from today. After expiry thereof, he could fine suit within two months thereafter. The trial Court would consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law on merits. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 473 - SUPREME COURT
Money decree - Held that:- The decretal amount deposited by the judgment-debtor, respondent no.1, in the Court shall be paid to the appellant decree-holder.In these circumstances one-half of the total amount deposited by the appellant in the Court in accordance with the order dated 6. 8.1991, together with the accretions thereto must be paid to the Judgment-debtor, respondent no.1 while the remained one-half of the total amount be refunded to the appellant.
The executing court should proceed forthwith to restore possession of the property to the judgment-debtor, respondent no.1. The Appellant must pay the amount due upto the date of restoration of possession according to the interim order dated 6.8 1991, to be disbursed in the manner indicated above.On compliance of the above directions the executing court is to record full satisfaction of the. decree and strike off the execution. The executing court is to make such orders as be necessary for giving full effect to these directions. We direct, accordingly
-
1996 (8) TMI 472 - SUPREME COURT
Whether any interference is called for by the Court whether under Article 226 or in a suit?
Whether the opportunity given was reasonable or not?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor. The only right of the licencee is to seek to enforce the terms of contract (which is statutory in nature) and the statutory provisions governing the contract. The considerations aforementioned should be kept in mind while examining complaints of violation of statutory Rules, conditions add terms of contract as well as complaints of jack of reasonable opportunity.
Thus as urged the before forfeiting the advance amount or the security deposit, a fresh opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided. From a perusal of the judgment under appeal, however, we do not find that any such contention was urged before it. For this reason, we decline to entertain this plea, which may involve investigation of factual aspects.
-
1996 (8) TMI 471 - SC ORDER
In the Absence of the Appellant - Nothing in Explanation to Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPC shall be construed as empowering the High Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits.
-
1996 (8) TMI 470 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/88-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... n of double levy of duty on the scrap i.e. once on the material contained in the scrap in the primary form and second time when it emerges as scrap would not arise, as from the primary material itself the duty burden was lifted by reason of the Modvat credit having been taken. In this context, what the benefit of a notification was contingent upon the goods having been manufactured out of duty paid inputs, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Chandrapur Magnets reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) has held that in case the Modvat credit is reversed, the benefit of notification could be allowed. From this it clearly follows that once the Modvat credit is taken the goods could not be considered as duty paid unless the Modvat credit was reversed. We, therefore, hold that the appeal of the revenue has to be allowed and we hold the learned lower authority was in error in having allowed the benefit of the notification. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1996 (8) TMI 468 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... December 3/5,1990, were only to give preference to a few creditors, respondents Nos. 4 to 76 who have paid not a single pie. The procedure for selling the property of the company, namely passing of the resolution and authorising the directors, has not been followed in this case. An agreement dated December 11, 1990, has also been entered into nullifying the sale that if the dues are paid then they will again execute the sale deed in favour of the company. This shows that preference was given to these creditors excluding other creditors similarly situated. In these circumstances, the application is allowed and the sale of movable/immovable property to respondents Nos. 4 to 76 on December 3, 1990, and December 5, 1990, is annulled. The official liquidator is directed to take possession of the movable/immovable property and deal with the same in accordance with law. The superintendent of police is directed to provide sufficient force for taking possession of the said properties.
-
1996 (8) TMI 461 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... not interfering with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal since the Appellate Tribunal had found as a fact that no manufacturing process had taken place. The civil appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 455 - SUPREME COURT
Whether trucks, trolleys, trailers and the like, but not passenger vehicles, as also their accessories and spare parts, tyres and tubes could be purchased by the respondent-Board at the concessional rate of tax prescribed under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that, to make things clear, the respondent-Board was entitled to have its registration certificate altered to include "tools and plants, including vehicles and other transportable goods, including their spare parts, tubes and tyres"?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. If a process or activity was so integrally related to the ultimate manufacture of goods so that without that process or activity manufacture may, even if theoretically possible, be commercially inexpedient, goods intended for use in the process or activity as specified in rule 13 would qualify for special treatment. The motor vehicles aforementioned and soaps, paints, raincoats and battery cells, to the extent aforementioned, are integrally related to the distribution of electricity and their non-use would make distribution commercially inexpedient
........
|
