|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 467 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 609 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Commissioner in imposing compounding fee by fixing minimum and maximum compounding fee to be imposed. Thus, the discretionary power of the Commissioner is controlled by Sec. 47-A of the Act. Therefore, the said power is neither arbitrary or discriminatory nor violative of Articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. In none of the cases, it is brought to our notice by filing relevant material that compounding fee imposed is more than ten times the duty involved or more than ₹ 1,00,000/- where no duty is involved. Mere assertion, without filing any relevant material, will not help in deciding the issue. When we have asked for production of panchanama or valuation certificate or certificate showing the duty evaded, no such material is placed before us. Therefore, it cannot be said that compounding fee is levied arbitrarily or unreasonably. For the foregoing discussion, we do not see any merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed without costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 608 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... etition of appeal has already been dismissed, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 607 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ic Acid with Zinc Oxide and it cannot possibly be termed as a Cosmetic or Toilet preparation. We do not see any reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 606 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ew that speech made in Parliament by the Finance Minister cannot be treated as a promise or representation made to the writ petitioner and the principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by the High Court. No case of promissory estoppel has been made out on the facts of this case. 3. In that view of the matter, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 605 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly recorded a finding of fact that the element of close supervisory control and direction over the artisans is not disputed by the Department in this case. It, therefore, follows that the assessee gets the different brassware articles manufactured from the artisans, but under its own close supervision and control. The design, shape and pattern are suggested by the assessee and conforming to them the articles are manufactured by the artisans. The artisans are not free to manufacture any item of their own in any shape or pattern they like, but they are guided by the assessee itself as to of which pattern and design they are required to manufacture the brassware articles. Applying the test of close supervision and control, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee can be classified as an industrial company. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1997 (9) TMI 604 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... impugned Act directly impinge on the analogous provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. From the aforesaid discussion it is obvious that the present tax is one on the excavation and use of forest land and not on the forest land as such. Taxing of the undertaking of non-forest activity in a forest land cannot be regarded as being covered by Entry 49 of the State List because what is sought to be taxed is not land but the tax is on absence of land or forest by reason of the activity of excavation and/or mining or use of forest land for a non-forest purpose. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents. As, in our opinion, legislative competence was lacking in the enactment of this Act, it is not necessary for us to consider the other questions or issues which were raised and decided by the High Court. For the aforesaid reason we find no merit in these appeals which are consequently dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 603 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... mphasis was laid down on the conduct of the driver for not stopping his truck at the check-post. On this ground, no penalty could be imposed under section 22-A(7) of the Act if otherwise it could not be imposed. Action against the driver could be taken under section 16(3)(f) of the Act for not stopping the truck at the check-post. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 10.. Accordingly, the application for revision is allowed and the judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated November 5, 1996 is set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I) dated March 27, 1995 setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,27,843 imposed under section 22-A(7) of the Act by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Chirawa, is restored. The amount of penalty, if recovered, will be refunded to the petitioner with interest within three months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with the law. No order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 602 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... atutory construction, that an express statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. No question of strict construction arises when the statutory provision is open to only one meaning It is the duty of the judges to apply the laws, not only to what appears to be regulated by their express dispositions, but to all the cases where a just application of them may be made, and which appear to be comprehended either within the consequences that may be gathered from it . Recalled from Domat s Civil Law (Cushing s edition) Volume 1, page 88. 14.. Considering all aspects of the matter, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned actions of the respondents requiring interference from this Court. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with cost Rs. 5,000 (five thousand). Interim order passed earlier by this Court shall automatically stands vacated. Rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 601 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , 1990. However, the assessment proceedings after the remand were initiated on February 11, 1994 and by that time the assessment proceedings had become time-barred. In paragraph 10 of the supplementary counter-affidavit it is averred that the facts given in the counter-affidavit, filed earlier were incorrect and for which an unconditional apology has been tendered. 6.. Now in view of the averments made in the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is apparent that the assessment proceedings for the assessment year in dispute had become barred by time. The respondent-assessing authority, therefore, cannot be permitted to proceed with the assessment. Consequently, the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1980-81 are quashed. The respondent is restrained from making any assessment for the said assessment year in consequence of the orders passed by the appellate authorities as indicated above. 7.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 600 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... t come under any other entry relating to notified goods, there is no question of obtaining sales tax permit for its importation from outside West Bengal. 14.. The applications, thus, succeed. The impugned seizures of the three consignments which are the subject-matters of these three applications are set aside. It is declared that P.S. plates and microlith sheets are commercial commodities altogether different from aluminium plates. The release order passed by this Tribunal on May 7, 1997 and May 16, 1997 in the three cases are made absolute. The respondents shall not proceed further with notices in form 44 issued against the applicants of these three cases. The penalty proceeding, if any, started against any of these three applicants in respect of the disputed consignments shall stand quashed. This judgment applies to all the three cases, viz., R.N. Nos. 127, 128 and 139 of 1997. We make no order as to costs. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Applications allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 599 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y charges for part of the price and the entire amount was liable to tax. 3.. The Tribunal on the other hand looked at the substance of the transaction and has rightly held that the intention of the assessee was to charge the freight and delivery charges separately and that was shown in the bills prepared by him. Instead of showing the price of the goods and adding it to the freight and delivery charges, the assessee has set out the aggregate amount and thereafter subtracted the freight and delivery charges. However, the tax collected by him was on the amount excluding the freight charges, and delivery charges. 4.. Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 excludes from definition of sale price, the freight and delivery charges if charged separately. 5.. The Tribunal has not erred in holding that on the facts established before it, the freight and delivery charges were to be excluded from the sale price. This revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iled. The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent State for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days. Law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 597 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... enge to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 and to the proviso to section 18 of the Act is found to be not acceptable as neither of the two provisions is found to be ultra vires or violative of any provision of the Constitution. Clause (i) of rule 24 and clause (c) of subrule (4) of rule 28A are also held to be valid. However, sub-rule (11) of rule 39A of the Rules is found to be arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and also contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The said sub-rule is, therefore, declared to be bad and is struck down. Consequently, the respondents are directed to provide form S.T. 14 to the brick-kiln owners paying lumpsum in lieu of sales tax so that such brickkiln owners could make declaration in form S.T. 14 available to the buyers of bricks making sales at the subsequent stage. 36.. The writ petitions stand partly allowed in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petitions allowed in part.
-
1997 (9) TMI 596 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a port within that state lay claim for tax on alleged inter-State sale of the goods so unloaded at the port within that state, even when such goods had inevitably to move to the state for which the goods were intended. 25.. Having regard to the special facts of this case we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal and of the authorities below. It is not necessary to go into the other pleas though we may observe that there is substance in the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given proper opportunity to establish it s case as the statements given as also the documents obtained from the transporter had not been made available to the petitioner despite its request. 26.. In the result, the revisions are allowed. The assessments made on the petitioner for tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on the disputed turnover are set aside. As the levy of tax has been set aside, the penalty imposed also cannot survive. No costs. Revisions allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 595 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly, there will be a direction to the first respondent-assessing authority to refund the amount due to the petitioner as per exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 revised assessment orders after deducting adjustments made from the above towards the dues for any other years, if any, made and also to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent as provided under section 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the period from July 17, 1990 up to August 29, 1995 and thereafter at the rate of 10 per cent till the date of payment for the years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 and at the rate of 6 per cent for the period from July 25, 1990 up to July 28, 1996 and thereafter at the rate of 10 per cent till the date of payment of the amount for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 as provided under the amended section 44 of the Act. There will also be a direction to the first respondent to pay the amount expeditiously. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 594 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or a turnover of Rs. 1,50,850.57 assessed at 10 per cent by the assessing officer. The files have been produced for our perusal. From a perusal of the file, we are able to discern that even during the time of original assessment, the defective C forms had been rectified and correct particulars have been furnished. Despite that, the assessing officer failed to give the necessary and requisite relief of concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent. This aspect of the matter had been duly taken into account, not only by the Tribunal, but also by the first appellate authority below and granted the relief to the assessee-dealers and such being the case, we rather feel that no interference is called for on that aspect of the matter. 10.. In fine, the former action, that is to say, T.C. (R) No. 720 of 1985 is allowed, while the latter action, that is to say, T.C. (R) No. 721 of 1985 is dismissed. 11.. There will, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of both these cases.
-
1997 (9) TMI 593 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... failed to advert to the agreement with the consignment agent. That agreement clearly shows that the agent carries on business at several places and on the terms of the agency, the agent was to store the goods any of those places and effect sales therefrom on behalf of the principal, and render accounts. The ownership, as also the risk, in relation to the goods were that of the assessee till the final disposal of the goods by the agent on behalf of the assessee, to buyers in other States. The Tribunal and the authorities below were, therefore, in error in holding the despatch of the goods to the consignment agent resulted in inter-State sales. 15.. The revision petitions are therefore, allowed in part. The assessing officer is directed to compute the amount of the turnover in relation to the goods despatched by the assessee to Berlia Chemicals and the assessee shall be liable to pay the Central sales tax on that part of its turnover for these years. Petition allowed in part.
-
1997 (9) TMI 592 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Section 8(2-A) of the Act applies to a general unconditional exemption, but the exemption granted under G.O.P. No. 1433, C.T. and R.E. dated December 17, 1983 is not a general unconditional exemption. It is an exemption subject to the condition that the dealer had not actually collected the tax. When the exemption granted is not an unconditional exemption, the assessee cannot plead protection under section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 591 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... overed in the records. The officer has recorded I have reasons to believe that the goods have been transported and stored at the said undisclosed godown in contravention of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 . It would, therefore, be clear from a study of the report that the officer did suspect evasion of taxes. Any normally prudent person who comes across such discrepancies would come to the conclusion on the basis of this sale that there was reason to suspect evasion of taxes. Hence, although the reasons recorded does not contain the specific words mentioned in section 66 of the 1994 Act regarding reason to suspect attempt at evasion of payment of any tax, the recording of the report, as was drawn up in the instant case, should be considered to be sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 66 of the 1994 Act. In the result, the application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 590 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n remains open to the applicants from fresh assessment orders, if they feel aggrieved. Therefore, fresh assessment orders to be passed by the assessing authority, who may be subordinate in rank to the Deputy Commissioner, cannot be assumed to be at the behest or under the dictation of the Deputy Commissioner. In any event, we are unable to apply the principle laid down in Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer 1958 9 STC 428 (SC) to the instant cases and, in our opinion, there is no invalidity or impropriety in making fresh assessments under section 11(1) by officers subordinate in rank to respondent No. 1. All the questions for decision are thus answered in the negative. 18.. No other point was argued on behalf of the applicants. In the result, the two applications, RN-26 and RN-27 of 1997, are dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. No order is made for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Applications dismissed.
........
|
