|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 583
... ...
... ... ..... 76 is taken into consideration, which was wholly unnecessary in the contest, the situation would not change because entry No. 76 is generic applicable to footwears of all varieties. In fact, it would be found that S.R.O. No. 641/81 deals with the specific situation referred to therein. The words have to be understood not in the generic sense of entry No. 76, but with special reference to the rate of tax payable under the said Act on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber products within the State will have special significance in the context, in the nature of an exception to the general situation to be found in entry No. 76. In our judgment, in fact, there was no reason to travel beyond the context of S.R.O. No. 641/81 as stated above. For all the above reasons the tax revision case succeeds and accordingly the claim of the assessee with regard to the assessment year 1988-89 is allowed in terms of S.R.O. No. 641/81. Ordered accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 582
... ...
... ... ..... bmissions before the appellate authorities being narrowed down, this Court would always be of concern in such jurisdictional situations. When resort to rejection of accounts becomes wholly unjustified by reason of its being due to variation of a microscopic amount in comparison and that too on a single surprise visit, such a resort is impermissible. We have already given our reasons in regard to the situation. The present proceedings bring before us a situation of an event where before the Appellate Tribunal the aspect does not appear to have been contended specifically. In our judgment that would not alter the situation. 14.. For the above reasons, the orders of all the three authorities are quashed and set aside and the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Thodupuzha, is directed to proceed with the assessment for the year 1990-91 on the basis of the amount shown in form No. 8 by the assessee. Order on C.M.P. No. 2886 of 1994 in T.R.C. No. 223 of 1994 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 581
... ...
... ... ..... sion in Commissioner v. Gopalakrishna Murlidhar (1963) 47 ITR 469 (AP.), the disallowance was unjustified. The plea of the Departmental Representative was that the authorities had justifiably disallowed the interest which is in line with the decision of Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. Commissioner (1994) 208 ITR 989 (Bom.). In our considered view, it is necessary to establish nexus between borrowed funds and the amount advanced, and in the absence of this finding the lower authorities were not justified in making the disallowance. Further, considering the capital and free reserves aggregating to Rs. 71.49 lakhs, we find considerable merit in the claim of the assessee and we uphold the same. The jurisdictional High Court (supra) is of no assistance to the Revenue because, it has not held that even where there is absence of nexus between borrowed funds and the amount advanced. We accordingly uphold the claim of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1996 (9) TMI 580
... ...
... ... ..... en given to the officer exercising powers under section 37(6) of the Act to impose penalty of not less than ten per cent and not more than twenty-five per cent of the value of goods. This is a discretion with the officer concerned, to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the tanker was going on an escape route with a duplicate bill which had not been issued from the regular bill book. The assessee himself admitted that bill No. 120 was not issued from the regular bill book and the same would have been torn had the tanker not been detected on reaching its destination in Delhi. The Tribunal applied its mind regarding quantum of penalty and reduced the same from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 68,750. Therefore, it is not a case of nonapplication of mind to the quantum of penalty. Question No. (iv), thus, does not require to be referred under these circumstances. In our opinion, no referable question of law arises. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 579
... ...
... ... ..... result of the above situation. 14.. Even the Tribunal has not seen the inevitable legal inference from the fact that in penalty proceedings, penalty of Rs. 11,402 is ridiculously reduced to Rs. 1,000. Although the Tribunal has referred to the submission that even though the Deputy Commissioner has given an almost clean certificate to the assessee regarding the stock variation, the Tribunal proceeds to observe that the stock was not separately stored. 15.. For all the above reasons, it is not possible to sustain any of the orders. However, the fortune of the situation is that the present revision case gave us an opportunity to convey our thoughts with regard to the approach, which requires essentially a practical and workable basis in enforcement of the statutory provisions. 16.. The result is that all the orders get quashed and set aside with a consequential direction that the assessment be proceeded with on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 578
... ...
... ... ..... o take such a view. The contents of the report and the materials having nexus thereto which assessing officer intends to utilise for the purpose of assessment has to be brought to notice of the assessee, and not the report itself. 16.. As indicated supra, the rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings under the taxing statutes. But principles of natural justice are to be followed, and they are inherent to such proceedings. The inevitable conclusion is that the assessee is not entitled to certified copy of the Inspector s report in the case at hand because order of the Sales Tax Officer dated January 25, 1996 clearly indicates the foundation of his view and therefore, report of the Inspector is inconsequential, so far as the assessee is concerned. Sales Tax Officer has arrived at this own conclusions with reference to the report, which has been indicated to the assessee. 17.. The writ application is dismissed. No costs. A. DEB, J.-I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 577
... ...
... ... ..... he check-post officer has not indicated which sub-section of section 45 is attracted, in the instant case, and what offence the petitioner has committed. 8.. Secondly, the very word composition would mean that the option is that of the accused. No person can be compelled to compound an offence. If the person is not willing to compound then, the only alternative is to initiate prosecution and punish the offender if the offence is established. Hence, the unilateral demand for payment of a large sum of money towards compounding fee is wholly unsustainable and untenable. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The respondent shall issue orders forthwith for the release of the consignment to the petitioner without imposing any condition. 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 24th day of September, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 576
... ...
... ... ..... The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were agitating before the assessing officer whether individually or collectively for exemption of dyeing contracts from the purview of section 3-B, that, that is the reason why they could not effectively raise all their objections before the assessing officer has also to be taken note of. 11.. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of assessment made in these batch of cases are set aside with liberty to pass fresh orders of assessment. The petitioners are granted time till 31st day of December, 1996 to file their objections and produce such other materials as may be available with them to warrant necessary exemption being granted in respect of consumables. 12.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 13.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 25th day of September, 1996. Matters remanded.
-
1996 (9) TMI 575
... ...
... ... ..... unity to file an appeal. The petitioner has now received P3 order. He can file an appeal before the competent authority within a period of 30 days from today. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority will hear and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from today. If the appellate authority reduces the amount of penalty or orders that no amount of penalty is leviable, the actual amount due to the petitioner will be returned to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of order failing which that amount will entail interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In the result, I quash exhibit P21. I direct an amount of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand only) to be paid as costs to the petitioner. The amount will be paid by the respondents within a period of one month from today. Original petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 17533 of 1996 in O.P. No. 10233 of 1996 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 574
... ...
... ... ..... ee before the Tribunal was that it was not provided an adequate and sufficient opportunity to explain the material which was relied upon in the best judgment against the assessee. The Tribunal accepted this contention and set aside the assessment with a view to provide an opportunity to the assessee to get the adverse material verified from its account books and to put on record its own version about the material in possession of the department and to facilitate a proper assessment on best judgment. The assessee cannot in these circumstances, be heard to say, that the order of remand passed by the Tribunal was not called for and indeed no such argument was canvassed before this Court. The contention that the Tribunal should not have rejected the account books, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. No other point was urged before this Court. The revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 573
... ...
... ... ..... the ground that the facts of the reported decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were different and distinguishable from the facts of the present case. On the basis of this decision, the Second Appeal No. 87 of 1986 was decided by the Tax Board on December 8, 1987. 10.. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is difficult to endorse the views of the assessing authority, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board. Both the applications for revision deserve to be allowed. 11.. Accordingly, the applications for revisions are allowed. The orders of the assessing authority levying tax on the I/G charges and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board are set aside. Amounts of the tax and interest recovered on amounts of the indemnity/guarantee charges will be refunded within three months to the petitioner with interest, in accordance with law. R.K. NAIR (Technical Member).-I concur with the conclusion. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 572
... ...
... ... ..... demand of the tax which had already been assessed earlier in the notice of demand of penalty under section 10-A, would not vitiate the assessment itself. The order of the Tribunal therefore will have to be understood as if the demand of tax along with the demand of penalty was held to be illegal but not that the levy of tax as such, because the levy was made much earlier to order under section 10-A and neither it was the subject-matter of the first appeal nor could it have been the subject-matter of the second appeal. Assessment of tax was by a separate proceeding and that had already become final. Thus understood, it cannot be said that the levy of tax itself has been set aside by the Tribunal. If this be the correct construction of the order of the Tribunal, then the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no legs to stand. 5.. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the tax revision cases. They are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 571
... ...
... ... ..... resolution in the present case before us. We are, therefore, not inclined to discuss the other aspects of the aforesaid Pine Chemicals Ltd. case 1992 85 STC 432, decided by the Supreme Court. What is uncontroversial is that the disputed turnovers were exempted from the tax net under the APGST Act. As the Division Bench of this Court in Pinakini case 1995 98 STC 144, interpreted G.O. Ms. No. 604, as a general exemption, the disputed turnovers must be exempted from the tax net under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. 10.. The T.R.C. is, therefore, allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the view of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the assessing authority is set aside. The two disputed turnovers shall be excluded from the purview of the tax net under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. If the tax has already been collected from the petitioner, the same shall either be refunded or adjusted against the future liabilities of the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 570
... ...
... ... ..... n the expression all types of cement. Having held so, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot take assistance from the order of identification by the Additional Collector referred to above. The classification of an item by the excise authority may be relevant but not decisive. 35.. The resolution uses the expression all types of cement. Every word used under resolution has to be given some meaning. In my opinion, the expression referred to above has to be understood in the way that any kind of cement coming within the expression cement, has to be brought under the aforesaid expression. As held earlier, the high alumina binders as also Accoproof are kinds of cement and in that view of the matter liable for export duty under the resolution. 36.. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 569
... ...
... ... ..... me benefit. Simply because, the petitioners industry, i.e., food processing unit, installed in category C, i.e., backward district, cannot claim the benefit of tax concession given to the advanced districts because the qualification for grant of benefit of tax exemption for a period of 11 years that industry should be installed in the advanced districts. Therefore, this is a class apart from that of the petitioner and as such there is no question of discrimination. As the petitioner installed his food processing unit in category C therefore, he is not similarly situated as the case of the unit installed in advanced districts. There is no invidious discrimination hence we do not find any illegality in extending this benefit to industries installed in the advanced district as ultra vires of the Act, hence, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 568
... ...
... ... ..... levy interest under those provisions and his failure to exercise that jurisdiction was an error apparent from the record which could be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The same High Court in another case reported as Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar-I, Patna v. Ashok Trading Company 1986 160 ITR 663 (Pat), has expressed an identical view where it has been held that the Income-tax Officer was bound to levy interest and having not exercised that jurisdiction, there was clearly an error apparent on the face of record. The rectification proceedings initiated under section 154 were valid. 16.. In view of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the omission to levy interest could not have been rectified taking resort to section 22 of the Act, cannot be accepted. The contention is accordingly rejected. 17.. No other point was urged before this Court. 18. Both the revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 567
... ...
... ... ..... ed certain figures of sales for the earlier year. 8.. Assessment had been framed for the assessment year 1971-72 on October 27, 1978, and for the next assessment year on December 12, 1978. Therefore, it does give rise to a question of law as to whether it was a case of best judgment assessment and, if so, the assessments were framed within the prescribed period of limitation. 9.. The following common question of law arises in all the aforesaid petitions Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assessment was made by the Assessing Authority to the best of his judgment after the expiry of five years from the end of the prescribed period for the furnishing of the return under section 11(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? 10.. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, is directed to state the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to the High Court for opinion. 11.. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 566
... ...
... ... ..... and sanitary fittings . There also the question was not whether the same goods could be classified under two different headings but the question was whether the goods in question did fall within the meaning of entry 26A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 14.. For the above reasons, we uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal that the products in question, Aegron 11, Aegron 12 and Aegron 22, fall under entry No. 2, we are unable to approve the conclusion of the Tribunal that where the use of those products is for purposes different from refrigerant, they have to be classified under entry No. 118. 15.. Inasmuch as against the finding of the Tribunal that if the said goods are sold for purposes other than refrigeration, they have to be classified under entry No. 118, the Revenue has not filed any revision, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the Revenue for the assessment year in question. The T.R.C. is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 565
... ...
... ... ..... ons specified in 1948 Act or the Rules framed thereunder. In view of this, it must be held that the respondent No. 2 has denied registration certificate to the petitioner on the basis of a wholly extraneous factor and a direction deserves to be given to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of registration certificate. 6.. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the order, annexure P2, with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide afresh the application filed by the petitioner for grant of no objection certificate within a period of three months from today. While doing so the respondent No. 2 shall not take into consideration the fact that M/s. Sumit Steel Corporation, Ajmer, Rajasthan, has not been able to satisfy the respondent No. 2 about the genuineness of its own registration. The respondent No. 2 shall give fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing appropriate order. Costs made easy. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 564
... ...
... ... ..... e held that factual material necessary to initiate and consequently justify the action is available in the nature of documents. On facts there is no material because these aspects get established from the cash bills at the one end and the check-post declarations referring to the entry of the goods on the other together with the fact that the accounts are silent in regard thereto. The assessee wanted to establish that the dealer had actually not purchased the goods. In our judgment the material on record was found by the authorities is more than sufficient and consequently the authorities will have to be held as justified in rejecting the prayer of the assessee with regard to the cross-examination. In our judgment, the facts revealed emphatically that there is material to substantiate the action and the conclusions reached by the authorities below do not require any interference. For the above reasons the revision stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
........
|
