|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 467 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 589 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... makes sense in the changed context. The definition as it stands, as was noted at the outset, owed its raison d etre to the need to ensure while encouraging industrial growth that benefits under the Incentive/Deferment Schemes for expansion are not availed of before the original licence had been substantially implemented or utilised. With the dismantling of the licensing system this is no more a justifiable consideration and till such time the framers of the Incentive/Deferment Schemes bestir themselves to modify the definition of expansion to bring it in line with changed circumstances benefits cannot be withheld and the purpose of the Incentive/Deferment Schemes in so far as it applies to cases of expansion be defeated. 27.. The applications for revision are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. This judgment in original be kept on the file of Petition No. 15 of 1997 with an authenticated copy being kept on the file of Petition No. 17 of 1997. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 588 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... be correct. There was a witness and his signature was taken both on the seizure receipt as well as on the seizure report and although the address of the witness is not available it does not mean that the witness is not identified. The witness was an employee of the dealer and was therefore well-known to them. There is no reason to hold that the witness was not an independent one. The argument that there was only one witness of the seizure instead of two as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure is an argument that does not appear to be correct. It is not required in a taxing statute that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed in toto and cannot be departed from in any way. In the circumstances of the case, presence of one witness rather than two is adequate compliance with the provisions of the statute. 16.. The application is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 587 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e seen that while the amount on which the interest should be calculated is required to be modified under section 10A(4) of the 1941 Act there is no mention whatsoever about any change in the period for which interest has to be paid and therefore the inescapable conclusion is that the interest has to be calculated on the modified amount for the period specified in section 10A(3) of the 1941 Act, i.e., interest has to be calculated from the first day of the month next following the date specified in the notice under section 11(3) of the 1941 Act. The scheme of the 1954 Act is also similar. The contention that in all cases of appeal, the date of appellate order would be the date from which interest can be calculated is, therefore, not acceptable in view of the clear provisions of section 10A(4) of the 1941 Act and section 8A(4) of the 1954 Act. 20.. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 586 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tually taken place. The bought notes themselves were regarded as insufficient to establish that there had been a prior sale and that the sales effected by the assessee were second sales. The Commissioner, therefore, restored the order of the assessing officer, who had held that the sales were taxable at multi-point rate. 2.. The findings arrived at by the Commissioner are findings of fact and are plausible on the evidence available on record. We find no error of law in the order impugned, calling for our interference. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 585 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ght or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged. 8.. It is clear from a reading of this definition that cost of freight or delivery or cost of installation is excluded from the sale price where they are separately charged. It has been found by the Joint Commissioner that the assessee had in fact separately charged for the amounts of freight and delivery. What has been excluded in the definition itself cannot be made a part of the sale price, on the basis of the definition of sale price in another enactment. Moreover, the transportation, in this case was undertaken on behalf of the buyer. 9.. The Joint Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that the freight and other incidental charges, though billed separately, were to be included in the turnover of the petitioner for assessment, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The impugned order of the Joint Commissioner is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 584 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ally get quashed and we need not go into the merits of the penalty proceedings separately. 13.. In the result, the application is allowed. The seizure of the consignment of white printing paper in seizure case No. 293/95-96 dated October 16, 1995 at Chichira check-post is declared to be illegal and the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated November 28, 1995 imposing penalty of Rs. 81,813 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Midnapore Circle dated May 22, 1996 reducing the penalty to Rs. 25,000 are set aside. The respondent No. 2, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chichira Check-post is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 81,813 which was deposited by the applicant within a period of six weeks from date. There shall be no order as to cost. After the judgment is delivered Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative, prays for stay of operation of the judgment. The submission regarding stay order is rejected. 14.. J. Gupta (Judicial Member).-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 583 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... business. The object of the appellant is something very different from doing business. When the appellant, whose laudable objects have already been enumerated by us, sold some prasadams like panchamirtham to the devotees, which is purely incidental, it cannot be said that the appellant is indulged in business in a commercial sense. The dominant activity of the appellant is religious and charitable in nature and not a business activity. 27.. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal and the writ petition are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. While admitting the writ appeal, the Bench granted interim stay on condition that the appellant furnishes bank guarantee for the entire amount to the satisfaction of the respondent. Now that the writ appeal is allowed, the bank guarantee, if any furnished by the appellant, shall stand cancelled, and the monies, if any, recovered by way of sales tax, shall be refunded to the appellant immediately. Writ appeal allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 582 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judgment in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai AIR 1971 SC 1201 that the respondent is a bona fide purchaser without notice of the charge under section 24(2) of the Sales Tax Act and therefore, his property cannot be proceeded against for the recovery of sales tax arrears. In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot proceed against the property of the respondent for the alleged arrears of sales tax due from a fresh vendor, viz., Ramkumar Gogia. We do not decide the question whether under the Revenue Recovery Act only the property of a defaulter can be brought to sale. We also do not want to decide the question whether the technical defects in the notices issued by the appellants would vitiate the proceedings. We therefore, confirm the judgment of the learned single Judge though for different reasons. 17.. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 581 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... return. That being so, no penalty can be levied under section 36(3) of the Act for non-payment or delayed payment of the tax due as per such return. In the instant case, admittedly, the revised return was filed after more than 2 years and 7 months of the last date prescribed for submitting the original return. In that view of the matter also, levy of penalty under section 36(3) of the Act for alleged delay in payment of tax due as per such revised return cannot be sustained. 8.. Having regard to the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that in the instant case, the tax due as per the revised return, admittedly, having been paid before the submission of the revised return, no penalty is leviable under section 36(3) of the Act. The Tribunal was correct in coming to such a conclusion. 9.. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Reference disposed of accordingly. No costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1997 (9) TMI 580 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w of the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court the realisation of Central sales tax in aid of section 35-A is not sustainable and therefore, without going into the other issues raised in this writ petition, the present application is to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed and the order of assessment dated October 31, 1986 so far it relates to levy of interest on the petitioner-company and the order dated November 19, 1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for the period ending March 31, 1983 under the Central Sales Tax Act are set aside. There shall however be no order as to costs. 8.. Civil Rule Nos. 3337, 3338, 3339, 3279, 3315, 3316, 3317, 3318, 3319, 3320, 3321, 3322, 1052 and 1053 of 1994 Following the above judgment, these writ petitions are allowed and the assessment order so far it relates to levy of interest on delayed payment of Central sales tax is concerned and the order of the Deputy Commissioner under revision are set aside. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 579 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eries or machine to hold it a spare part, is fully established. The said enamelled wire cannot be put to use as an ordinary electricity wire for the purposes of passing current through it. It has got its own distinctive purpose. A common man and in common parlance, same is considered to be put to use only as mentioned above and not for any other purpose which does not find place in the Schedule issued under the notification by the State Government. 18.. In this view of the matter, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The same is hereby quashed. Instead, I hold that enamelled wire, shall be covered under serial No. 10 of the Schedule of notification, issued by State Government on April 1, 1995 and accordingly would be liable to be taxed at 4 per cent only. 19.. The petition, thus, succeeds and is hereby allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded back to the petitioner after its due verification. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 578 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... into consideration for finding out the applicability of section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the rate of tax in respect of his inter-State sales turnover. There could be, therefore, no doubt that the assessees-respondents in all these cases are liable to pay sales tax at the rate including the additional sales tax in respect of their inter-State sale under the Central sales tax assessment orders. 7.. Following the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the department and against the assessee. It is held that additional tax imposed under the State law would partake the character of the original tax in the inter-State transactions and would enhance the rate of tax applicable to the goods. Section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, would not exclude the applicability of the additional rate of tax. No costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1997 (9) TMI 577 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hin its legislative competence. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication, the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant of power efficacious. The hostile plea of discrimination between the manufacturer and the dealer bears no merit. There cannot be equality amongst the unequals. Article 14 only prohibits class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification. The right to equality does not take away from the State power of classifying persons for legitimate purposes. All differential treatment cannot be labelled as violative of the equality clause enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 does not demand the legislative classification should be in mathematical precision and logically faultless. 8. Upon considering all aspects of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 576 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... enhancement petition and to enhance the assessment, that power should be exercised with considerable care and caution so as to prevent any injustice being given to the assessee, who in the normal course, is entitled to assume that the order of assessment in so far as it is in favour of the assessee, will not be interfered with except for good and sufficient reasons. The documents which had been scrutinised and accepted are the documents which had been accepted by the assessing officer and if they are to be reopened before the Tribunal, adequate opportunity should be provided to the assessee to produce the requisite documents or to correct the errors and omissions in the documents if such errors and omissions were bona fide and are capable of being corrected. 5.. The impugned order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, and in the light of the observation made in this order. Matter remanded.
-
1997 (9) TMI 575 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 13.. In so far as the other writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 18662 of 1997 is concerned, as the petitioner approached this Court at the stage of show cause notice, we direct the petitioner to file its explanation to the show cause notice before the authorities, i.e., second respondent within two weeks from today, and on such explanation being filed, the authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The issuance of C form to the petitioner would abide the result of the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. It would be open to the petitioner, if deemed necessary to have the form A amended in accordance with law after receiving C form in respect of other goods which are not mentioned in C form, provided it can be done in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. W.P. No. 18682 of 1997 allowed. W.P. No. 18662 of 1997 dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ne more opportunity to verify the seized records on or before August 18, 1987. Copy of the notice was sent to the assessee also. But neither the advocate nor the assessee availed of the opportunity. The assessing officer thereupon completed the assessment for the years 1982-83 to 1986-87 under section 19 of the KGST Act. 6.. The above facts are not disputed by the assessee-revision petitioner. We are of the view that the assessing authority had granted more than required opportunity to the assessee to inspect the records and take necessary notes therefrom. Since the only contention pressed before us is the failure to give opportunity to the assessee to verify the records to take extract therefrom, the revision petitions are only to be dismissed. We are of the view that the Tribunal has correctly held that there was no laches on the part of the assessing authority to give proper opportunity to the assessee. The tax revision cases therefore stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... equire elaboration. It appears that the revenue took this judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Supreme Court but when the matter came up before the Supreme Court, the Revenue did not press the matter relating to imposition of sales tax on supply of specification and tender forms. The Supreme Court observed (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board 1970 25 STC 188 at 191) Mr. Shroff, who has argued the appeals of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, has not quite properly and rightly pressed the matter relating to imposition of sales tax on supply of specification and tender forms. 6.. In view of the above, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 7.. In view of the answer to question No. 1 being in favour of the assessee, question No. 2 is academic and the same need not be answered. It is accordingly returned unanswered. This reference is disposed of accordingly no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 572 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only dismissed the SLP in limine and no legal question as such was decided. The decision of rejection of SLP cannot be a ground to overlook the law laid down by the Supreme Court in review petition (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. reported in 1995 96 STC 355 (1995) 1 SCC 58) and the Supreme Court by the aforesaid decision laid down the law and it is now a binding law on this Court. The impugned order dated 31st July, 1992/3rd August, 1992, was passed on consideration of the records and the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes dated 1st July, 1992. The impugned order is passed lawfully and at any rate no injustice is caused. 7.. Considering the case and in the light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. 1995 96 STC 355 (1995) 1 SCC 58 , I do not find any merit and accordingly, it stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 571 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f interState trade or commerce. 18.. In the case of Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1993 88 STC 204 (SC) (1993) 1 SCC 364 it was argued on behalf of the contractor that the deductions should be made in respect of the items from the value of the entire contract, one of those items is transportation charges for transport of goods to the place of works. The Supreme Court held that charges under the head transportation charges for transport of goods to the place of works cannot be excluded. It was observed that the position of a contractor in relation to a transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract is not different from that of a dealer in goods who is liable to pay sales tax on the sale price charged by him from the customer for the goods sold. 19.. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax. 20.. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed, but there would be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 570 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of section 18, may be realised from the petitioner only after all outstanding liabilities against the erstwhile owner falling under categories I, II and III are satisfied. In other words, if after satisfying the liabilities under categories I, II and III some amount still remains and which is payable to the owner in terms of sub-section (1) of section 2, only then the statutory dues pertaining to the period prior to the appointed date, not exceeding the balance due to the erstwhile owner, can be recovered from the petitioner. This follows from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 7 of the Acquisition Act. 9.. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it follows that the impugned order of attachment issued under section 13-A(i) of the O.S.T. Act (annexure 1) cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. 10.. In the result, the writ application is allowed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. P.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
........
|
