|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 603
... ...
... ... ..... y which occasioned for the period mentioned in sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 21, but they should give explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should be required to satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper explanation. In this case, the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under sub-sections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievance before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2). That was not the explanation given. Therefore, the Tribunal is wholly unjustified in condoning the delay. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 602
... ...
... ... ..... o repeat, should not be matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed. We must make it clear that we have not case, and we should not be understood to have cast, any reflection on the merits of either party’s case. What we have said is confined to the question at issue, viz., the desirability or advisability of staying the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent pending the criminal proceeding/case against him. For the above reasons, it must be held that the Tribunal was in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings pending the criminal proceedings against the respondent. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall go on expeditiously without waiting for the result of the criminal proceedings. The costs of the appellant are estimated at ₹ 5,000/-.
-
1996 (9) TMI 601
... ...
... ... ..... t be necessary to appear in the eligibility test for candidates who have applied or/are applying for the lecture’s posts pursuant to the advertisement dated January 23, 1995, if they have obtained M.Phil degrees or submitted Ph.d thesis before December 31, 1994 i, e., prior to the date of the publication of advertisement, and further directing the Haryana Public Service Commission and State of Haryana to ensure that as and when any such advertisement is issued, they would bear in and that the eligibility dates be not far off from the date of advertisement, are set aside and it is declared that the exemption from eligibility test for the purpose of appointment on the post of Lecturer will have to be confined to candidates fulfilling the requirements in the 1991 Regulations as amended by notification dated June 21, 1995. The direction given by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in so far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned is not disturbed. No orders as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 600
... ...
... ... ..... cial may be the scope and ambit of the legal fiction created by the legislature while enacting Section 4A such fiction can arise only when the express language of the Section laying down the conditions precedent for raising of such a fiction is complied with by the concerned mortgagee in possession seeking the benefit of such a deeming fiction. Such a fiction cannot be extended by the Court on analogy or by addition or deleting words not contemplated by the legislature. As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must, therefore be held that the appellants have failed to fulfil both the conditions precedent for applicability of Section 4A and for getting the benefit of deemed fiction arising therefrom. Consequently the High Court as well as the courts below were perfectly justified in not extending the benefit of Section 4A to the appellants. In the result these appellants, fail and are dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the cases there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 599
Whether the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution wrongly invoked?
Held that:- The learned Judge observed that in the light of Articles 47 and 21 "it is not possible to accept any privilege of the State having the right to trade in goods obnoxious and injurious health." Lastly we may also invoke the holding in Har Shankar and Jageram that the writ petitioners, having entered into agreements voluntarily,containing the conditions aforesaid and having done the business under the licences obtained by them, cannot be allowed to either wriggle out of the agreements nor can they be allowed to challenge the validity of the Rules which constitute the terms of the contract. The High Court should not have exercised its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in aid of such licencees. For the above reasons, the appeals are allowed, the judgments and orders of the High court under appeal are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents writ petitioners are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs.. 5,000/-in each appeal.
-
1996 (9) TMI 598
Did the first respondent make bids at the auction of ₹ 50 and ₹ 45 lacs respectively over the successful bids for Group nos. 108 and 111??
Held that:- This is a question of fact. It was rightly referred to the Financial Commissioner under the statutory provision by the Division Bench in its order on the earlier writ petition. On the order passed by the Financial Commissioner the High Court could interfere in a writ position under Article 226 only if it found it to be perverse, that is to say if it found its conclusions such as could not reasonable have been arrived at upon the record. The division Bench in the order under appeal had not so held, specifically or impliedly.
The judgement of the Division Bench that the auction with respect to Group nos. 108 and 111 was neither fair nor proper is based upon conjectures and inferences more tenuous than those it found the Financial Commissioner guilty of. Such conjectures and inferences are impermissible in a judgment upon a writ petition under Article 226 where the fact-finding authority had arrived at a conclusion which is not perverse or so unreasonable that, upon the record, it could not have been reached. The Division Bench was, in the circumstances, in error in reaching the conclusion that the auction was not fairly and properly held with the result that the State exchequer had ben subjected to a huge loss. At the same time, the finality of auctions must also be recognised to be in the interests of the exchequer. If auctions are set aside and re-auctions ordered in less than satisfactory material, the loss of the exchequer would be far greater. Appeal allowed
-
1996 (9) TMI 597
... ...
... ... ..... terised as textile machinery spares and at the most it may only be accessories. 6.. Having considered the rival submission, it is held that since cones and tubes have been included in the notification granting concession and there is no restriction that the cones and tubes should be made of metals or that the cones and tubes should be made permanently embedded in the machinery, there is no justification for agreeing with the conclusion of the Joint Commissioner that metallic cones and tubes alone will be eligible for concessional rate of tax and not paper cones and tubes. The order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. The delay in representation of the petition is condoned. 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 17th day of September, 1996. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 596
... ...
... ... ..... t means the aggregate amount for which the goods are either bought or sold. As a result thereof the Division Bench has ruled that the aggregate amount would clearly include the sales tax also. Consequently it is held that section 5(2A) of the Act which levies turnover tax forms part of the same section which levies sales tax and there is no reason to hold that the term turnover has a different meaning for the purposes of turnover tax. 3.. Learned counsel for the assessee has also placed before us an order of the apex court with regard to the same position but in the case of different assessees-Messrs. Lamina Suspension Products (P) Ltd., to show us that the special leave petition of the Revenue is dismissed by the order dated November 4, 1994 which was against the subject-matter in T.R.C. Nos. 158 and 159 of 1994 of this Court, special leave petitions being 12078 and 12079 of 1995. In view of the above position tax revision case stands dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 595
... ...
... ... ..... h penalty under section 22A(7) of the Act was imposed against the petitioner-transporter in the impugned orders and decisions reported in (1986) RLR 49 (RHC) (SB) and (1988) 25 STL 26 (RHC) (DB) (Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Co. v. State of Rajasthan) go to show that the petitionertransporter was repeatedly found in collusion with traders to avoid or evade tax during the course of the movement of the goods through his vehicles. They cannot go to validate the said provisions of confiscation which are beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan Legislature. 11.. Accordingly, both the applications moved under section 8(1) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act and the writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that the third proviso to section 22A(7), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, was ultra vires of the Constitution of India. Orders (annexure-I in all cases) dated September 29, 1995 confiscating the said trucks are quashed. No order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 594
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is actually employed as a welder in a well-known industrial concern in the name and style of Telco at Alwaye. The certificate of the Panchayat also shows that no licence was given to him for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 clinging on a stray that the assessee made an application for loan for business, not even specifying the nature thereof. The department has sought to contend that the assessee was a manufacturer and dealer in bricks. Reading of the three orders also does not show the particulars of the enquiry which is not an impossibility to place on record and urge specifically in regard thereto. Independently also we feel that there is no material on record to create situations of probabilities that the assessee was carrying on any business activity relating to the manufacture and dealing with bricks much less during the course of the period of the assessment years in question. For all the above reasons tax revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 593
... ...
... ... ..... art of the proviso to sub-section (8) of section 18 to the extend as under (a) ....If for any reason such fresh assessment is not made within the specified period, the Commissioner shall take steps to ensure that assessment is made as expeditiously as possible. This part of the provision is struck down being violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9.. Now coming to the merit part, we do not know what steps have been taken by the State Government after the order passed by the Board of Revenue. As the reference application filed by the State Government has already been rejected, we do not know whether the order of the Commissioner has been complied within limitation or not. Since we have struck down this part of the proviso to sub-section (8)(a) of section 18 of the Act, let consequence follow therefrom. 10.. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed in part.
-
1996 (9) TMI 592
... ...
... ... ..... to certain items, the Tribunal has endorsed the approach of the assessing authority. At the end the Tribunal has endorsed the decision of the first appellate authority. 6.. Thus the treatment of the subject by the three authorities specifically relates to factual positions. 7.. The learned counsel urged before us that the assessing authority has committed obvious errors in the determination of the estimate. Apart from the position that the situation is purely factual in character, we would like to mention particularly the submission of the learned counsel with regard to the addition of the purchase turnover which, according to her, has been added more than once. Going through the calculations we do not find the situation creating any error which would be, of course, of a factual character. Considering the entire situation we are unable to exercise our limited powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revision stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 591
... ...
... ... ..... s common experience and knowledge and it is on the basis of this the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 has to be understood and the assessee is exempt thereunder. 18.. Therefore the legal consequence under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 would follow as a necessary sequitor of the situation. 19.. All these revision cases are the situations that the conclusions of the authorities below are erroneous with regard to a question of law, in regard to applicability of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The above discussion would show that the petitioner-assessee are entitled to exemption under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For all the above reasons in all these revision cases the orders of the three authorities get quashed and set aside. This would result in the dropping of the proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 against the assessee with regard to all these assessment years. Revision cases are allowed. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 590
... ...
... ... ..... very of luxury tax. Section 14(4) of the 1994 Act prescribes that on the receipt of this report from the Bureau the prescribed authority may require the Bureau to transfer to it any accounts, registers or documents seized by the Bureau. From this it is not possible to conclude that once the Bureau has conducted an investigation or enquiry into any case of alleged or suspected evasion of tax, its report is binding on the assessing authority. In all such cases a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to the person concerned who is alleged to be a stockist. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 14 cannot be interpreted in any manner to be provisions taking away the right of independent action by a quasi-judicial authority and hence the challenge to the validity of section 14 must fail. 22.. In the result, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 589
... ...
... ... ..... the matters the assessee approached the Tribunal. As regards the assessment year 1990-91, the Tribunal did not interfere because the first appellate authority had itself reduced the estimation to two times. However, with regard to the assessment year 1991-92, the Tribunal brought both the situations to the same level by reducing the estimation from three times to two times of the running stock. This Court in its powers under section 41 of the KGST Act had chosen not to interfere as far as possible in the matter of estimation. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, independently also even left to ourselves, there is no scope for further reduction in the matter especially in relation to the sales tax liability dealing with transactions in jewellery, gold and silver, wherein, in our judgment, discretion is already exercised leaning more in favour of the assessee. For the above reasons both the tax revision cases stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 588
... ...
... ... ..... ied by any record whatsoever. Even on probabilities this situation cannot be disturbed because it is only because of that there was reason to suspect. 9.. Yet another aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order and that is regarding the valuation fixed by the first appellate authority at Rs. 450 per quintal with reference to a submission to re-compute the amount of penalty. The Tribunal has rejected the aspect by observing that no evidence has been produced to show that the price fixed by the first appellate authority is excessive, the situation requiring no interference in regard thereto. 10.. After carefully considering the travel of the proceedings, in our judgment, within the limits of our statutory powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, it is not possible to consider the position otherwise even with regard thereto apart from the statutory limits. For the above reasons the T.R.C. stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 587
... ...
... ... ..... ord in regard thereto reveals that the amount of Rs. 4,99,990 found from this Usman of Tellicherry was the sale proceeds of gold biscuits sold by him to Shri K.V. Bhaskaran, partner of the assessee-firm. This was the part of the seizure of gold jewellery, primary gold and gold coins in all weighing 8,735 gms. We do not find any error in regard thereto, much less, left to ourselves we would have also recorded the same conclusion on the factual matrix. 13.. Our impression is that even the first appellate authority has lean in favour of reduction of the estimated running stock when there are situations if applied to the facts and circumstances of the case that even six times will have to be termed as modest. As stated above that this Court has always chosen to leave matters of discretion to the fact-finding authorities. For all these reasons it is not possible even to contemplate interference under our powers of revision. Tax revision cases stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 586
... ...
... ... ..... he quantum of addition made for the previous year. The Tribunal has found that the findings of the first appellate authority are fair and reasonable. The Tribunal has further specifically observed that each year is a self-containing unit and the decision of the previous year would not govern the situation of the subsequent year. It is also emphasised that even the lower fact-finding authorities did not consider the position of the previous year rightly. 9.. We find that the first appellate authority has considerably reduced the percentage of addition and reasons in regard thereto have been given. The Tribunal also has considered the submissions placed before it in regard thereto, specifically recording that no other aspect was urged. In these circumstances no question of law could be said to arise as has been held by this Court times without number. On facts the orders are supported by acceptable and sufficient reasons. Tax revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 585
... ...
... ... ..... as made under section 5B of the 1941 Act. 19.. Having considered all these aspects we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the present application is dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. The interim order dated February 23, 1996 restraining the respondents from realising the penalty amount of Rs. 70,000 is hereby vacated. Rs. 35,000 if deposited in terms of the order dated February 23, 1996 may be adjusted against the penalty imposed. L.N. Ray (Chairman).-I agree. M.K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member).-I agree. 22. Mr. S.N. Dey, learned advocate for the applicant, prays for a stay of operation of the judgment and order for 12 weeks so that the applicant can move the Supreme Court of India. Mr. M.C. Mukhopadhyay, learned State Representative, opposes the prayer for stay. After hearing both sides it is directed that realisation of balance Rs. 35,000 as penalty be stayed for eight weeks from now. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 584
... ...
... ... ..... d sales has been reduced to 20 per cent by the first appellate authority, which is confirmed by the Tribunal. The first appellate authority did not disturb the addition of 70 per cent to the added turnover as purchase turnover. The Tribunal also has not disturbed this situation. 5.. Therefore, as stated above, the above two aspects must reflect with reference to the grant of relief in the matter of addition in the situation. Giving an anxious thought to the situation, we would not like to disturb the addition of 20 per cent granted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. However, for the above reasons, we reduce the addition to 40 per cent of the added turnover as purchase turnover. Accordingly, we direct that the authorities shall complete the proceedings on the above basis of 20 per cent to the declared sales and 40 per cent to the added turnover as purchase turnover. The tax revision case gets disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
