|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 467 Records
-
1997 (9) TMI 569 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re, it cannot be said that all the items of cereals specified in the Third Schedule to the APGST Act or section 14 of the CST Act should be treated alike by granting exemption and that they should be brought within the meaning of cereals for purposes of the notification. The State Legislature treated various categories of cereals differently for purposes of rate of tax and the State Government has extended the benefit of exemption only in respect of such of them which have been included within the meaning of cereals in entry 20 of the Third Schedule to the APGST Act. It is brought to our notice that a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view in Writ Petition No. 19826 of 1996 dated July 17, 1997 (Gunturu Zilla Gruha Parisramala Sangham Rice Mill v. Government of A.P.) reported in 1998 110 STC 172 supra. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the orders under appeal. The special appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 568 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rding sufficient cause as a finding of fact, acting as is expected of reasonable and prudent person. 9.. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned orders. We do not find any error in the inference drawn by the Tribunal on the basis of the materials placed before it. Neither the Tribunal has taken into account any extraneous material nor any relevant material has been ignored in coming to the conclusion. The inference drawn cannot also be accused as being perverse or impermissible. In the said view of the matter, this Court cannot interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at by the Tribunal. This Court s jurisdiction under section 23 is restricted only to the question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal which, in our opinion, does not arise in the present case. 10.. For the said reasons, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 567 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the assessing authority. I say so being fully conscious of the fact that a deferment order from the Commissioner was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wholly unnecessary. As pointed out earlier an order of stay suspending operation of a statutory provision essential for completion of the assessment proceedings takes effect proprio vigore and does not depend upon a consequential order of deferment that the Commissioner or the assessing authority may have chosen to make. Assessment proceedings would have remained deferred even in the absence of such an order by reason only of order of stay issued by this Court. No order of deferment was necessary but even when such an order has been made the same does not in any way worsen the position of the respondent. In the totality of the above circumstances therefore I see no reason to interfere. There is no merit in these petitions which fail and are accordingly dismissed. 9.. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 566 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er warranted nor necessary. 9.. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. In terms of section 12(5) as it stood originally, the assessing authority could make an assessment order within a period of three years from the date on which a return under sub-section (1) of section 12 was submitted by the dealer. The amending Act, while substituting section 19-A, has simultaneously amended section 12(5) also to provide that the assessments shall be completed within two years from the dates on which the returns are filed under sub-section (1) of section 12. There is therefore merit in the submission made by the Government Pleader that the reduction in the period of limitation prescribed for completing the assessments is meant to proportionately reduce any prejudice that an assessee may suffer should it be found that an amount in excess of what was actually payable. In the result, I see no merit in this petition, which fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 565 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... atic no . The dealers or sellers, from whom the assessee-dealer purchased groundnut kernel, as found by the assessing authorities, inclusive of the Tribunal, is that the said dealers or sellers are either non-registered dealers or dealers, who have misused the registration certificate issued in favour of the other dealers. Such being the case, it cannot at all be stated that the assesseedealer, purchaser in the instant case, had successfully established that the groundnut kernels, he had purchased from such dealers, had suffered tax at the hands of the department under TNGST Act. 13.. In this view of the matter, it cannot at all be stated that the assessment of the disputed turnover at the hands of the assessing authorities as eligible to tax under the CST Act on the sales he had effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is not justified under law. We answer the point accordingly. 14.. In fine, the tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 564 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for that purpose but proceeded to ignore those records and held the assessee liable to tax in respect of these transaction. 3.. As the assessee had produced materials which had been considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to hold that this disputed turnover does not relate inter-State sale but to consignment sales, and the documents considered by him had not been considered either by the assessing officer or by the Joint Commissioner, we consider it just and proper in the circumstances to remand the matter back to the assessing officer. The order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer. It will be open to the petitioner to produce all the documents to which reference has been made in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, before the assessing officer who will examine the same and make fresh order in respect of this disputed turnover, in accordance with law. This appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not open for the Revenue to contend that the expression total turnover relating to transfer of property as appearing in section 17(6) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1988 should be read as total turnover relating to the value of the works contract. Such an interpretation cannot be given by applying any known and established rule of construction of statutes. Accordingly, it is held that the appellants are liable to pay tax at the rate of 2 per cent on the total turnover relating to transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or any other form) involved in execution of the works contract undertaken by them and not on the entire value of such contract. 9.. Accordingly, impugned revisional order is set aside for the three periods, i.e., the year ending on June 30, 1986, June 30, 1987 and March 31, 1988. 10.. In the result, S.T.A. No. 70 of 1997, S.T.A. No. 71 of 1997 and S.T.A. No. 73 of 1997 are allowed. Anyhow, there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 562 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... sing authority and his being unaware of the requirement was accepted. Due note was also taken of the fact that the ACTO had not said that the form S.T. 18A was in any respect not reliable or acceptable. 11.. Para 6 supra answers the questions of law raised in the application for revision, however, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and the concurrent finding of the two appellate authorities below that there was no intent to evade tax, I do not think that any interference with this concurrent finding is warranted at this stage in exercise of this Tribunal s power of revision, particularly in the absence of any material on record to reverse this finding. For this reason the application for revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Milap Chandra Jain (Chairman).-I concur. J.P. Bansal (Judicial Member).-I reiterate the views I have expressed in my judgment. As per majority The application for revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 561 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n is also equally misconceived because the only difference which has been made by incorporation of the said three clauses is that whereas earlier the rate of turnover tax was uniform in respect of all the dealers having turnover exceeding the minimum being exempt but now staggering rate of tax varying between 1 per cent to 3 per cent has been provided depending upon the quantum of the turnover of the dealers. 10.. In our opinion, it is also now well-settled that it lies within the plenary powers of the Legislature and its delegator to provide for different rate of tax in respect of different classes of dealers provided the classification is clear and well intended and is based on a rational basis. Adjudging from the said point of view, it cannot be said that by providing a higher rate of tax for dealers having high turnover is in any way unreasonable or irrational. Therefore, this ground as well fails. 11.. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 560 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ose proceedings. It is also not a party to these proceedings. 11.. Counsel further contended that in the decisions reported in Union of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. 1979 43 STC 457 (SC), Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes 1975 35 STC 445 (SC) and Sundaram Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment) I 1983 52 STC 214, the courts had directed refund of tax, which had been paid erroneously. Such an order of refund can only be made in a proceedings properly laid under the appropriate statute. No such relief can be granted in a proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act, with respect to a proceeding initiated, and which has become final under the Maharashtra Act. 12.. The Tribunal was erred in holding that the State of Tamil Nadu was not entitled to collect the tax, on these transactions. The order of the Tribunal, is therefore, set aside, and that of the assessing officer restored. 13.. Revisions are allowed accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 559 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also it is necessary for the assessee to explain the use to which rosin oil is put to and the difference between rosin and rosin oil. Ultimate decision has to be taken by the authority on the basis of the material thus supplied by the assessee and also on the basis of scientific material and the understanding of the commodity in the commercial world. We therefore set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the assessing authority in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The assessing authority will issue notice and give proper opportunity to the assessee to produce sufficient materials in support of its contention. After reconsidering the entire matter, as directed in this judgment, modification if necessary can be made by the assessing authority in the assessment orders for the years 1982-83 to 1985-86. The tax revision cases are allowed as above. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 558 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is Court in Aitha Narasaiah and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 43 STC 183, in respect of his submission that the word rate occurring in section 8(2)(a) of the Act, could only mean the amount of tax which becomes actually payable after giving rebate as provided under Explanation III to entries 21 and 22 of the Third Schedule to the Act. We have carefully perused the said decision. There is nothing in the decision which supports the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13.. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the reduction in quantum of tax liability under the State Act by operation of the provisions contained in Explanation II of the Fourth Schedule to the said Act, will not amount to general reduction in the rate of tax under the State Act for the purposes of section 8(2A) of the Central Act. 14.. Accordingly, the appellant is not entitled to any relief as claimed. The appeal thus stands dismissed but of course without any costs. Appeal dismissed
-
1997 (9) TMI 557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... prescribed for filing the appeal, does not render the appeal ineffective. This view of the Tribunal is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. E.P. Nawab Marakkadi 1996 100 STC 1 wherein it has been held that the admitted tax must be paid within the maximum period allowed for filing of the appeal, even though the proof of such payment may be produced later. In this case, the admitted tax was paid several days after the extendable date for filing of the appeal had expired. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained. Revision petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 556 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... its canvassing agent at Nagpur, for holding that there were orders prior to the despatch of those lorry loads and these consignees were in fact buyers. 5.. In the course of the order of the Commissioner, there is no discussion whatsoever of any of the documents, which the assessee had filed and their contents, viz., the agency agreement, the statements of account, form XX and form F, all of which were contemporaneous. The discussion in the Commissioner s order is only with reference to these two slips, and nothing is said about the other documents or their genuineness. 6. The impugned order of the Commissioner, therefore, is one which is required to be and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Joint Commissioner, for considering all the documents in accordance with law. The Joint Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.. The appeal is ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 555 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case, it goes without saying that tarpaulin must have to be construed as cotton fabrics under the substituted entry No. 4 of the TNGST Act liable to be exempted, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated under section 8 of the CST Act. If the finished product tarpaulin is allowed to be taxed under the CST Act, the purpose for which the Tamil Nadu Act No. 37 of 1974 had been enacted would be defeated and the assessee would suffer detriment twice, in the sense of not only paying duty under the CESA, but also paying tax under the CST Act. 20.. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the finished product tarpaulin sold by the assessee during the relevant years must have to be construed as cotton fabrics , falling under the substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act and liable to be exempted from tax, pursuant to the provisions contained in section 8 of the CST Act. 21.. In fine, all these revisions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 554 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eavier burden of tax. The classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against that clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequalities. In Kodar case 1974 34 STC 73 (SC) AIR 1974 SC 2272, the constitutional validity of a similar levy was upheld on the capacity to pay. ............................ The economic wisdom of a tax is within the exclusive province of the Legislature. The only question for the court to consider is whether there is rationality in the belief of the Legislature that capacity to pay the tax increases, by and large with an increase of receipts. The view taken by the court in Kodar s case 1974 34 STC 73 (SC) AIR 1974 SC 2272, is in consonance with social justice in an egalitarian State and therefore the contention based on article 14 of the Constitution must fail. (Emphasis supplied) 9.. In the result, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (9) TMI 553 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce to support his claim for exemption. 6.. We therefore set aside the order of the Tribunal under challenge except to the extent it has reduced the estimate from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. We affirm the view taken by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority regarding the inclusion of the amount of Rs. 76,67,305 on the basis of the additional income returned by the assessee before the income-tax authorities. As far as the claim put forward by the assessee for exemption in respect of the turnover of Rs. 16,19,912.25, we remit the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. It will be open to the assessee to adduce additional evidence, if any, in support of his claim. The assessing authority will examine the matter in the light of the provisions of law on the basis of the evidence adduced by the assessee and final orders will be issued as expeditiously as possible. The revision petition is partly allowed as above. Petition allowed partly.
-
1997 (9) TMI 552 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Redemption fine - Quantum of - Market price - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... has to be applied, therefore has to be accepted. Besides this margin of profit also corresponds with the margin that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has to be appropriate after considering three orders of the Commissioner. We are, therefore, of the view that fine of 100 would be appropriate. We, therefore, reduce the fine to Rs. 24 lakhs. 6. emsp The Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. He has not indicated any reason as to why penalty has been imposed or determining the quantum of penalty. It would appear the penalty has been imposed for importation without a licence. Since the import was without licence the liability to penalty cannot be disputed. There is however, no allegation that there has been any misdeclaration of value or quantity. On the contrary declared value has been accepted. As we have seen the value compares favourably with the value determined before the Customs. Taking this into account we reduce the penalty on the appellants to Rs. 2.5 lakhs.
-
1997 (9) TMI 551 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... learned J.D.R. that Central Excise Tariff is based on H.S.N. Therefore, the Explanatory Notes to H.S.N. have a high persuasive value for determination of the classification. H.S.N. Notes as pointed out above by the learned J.D.R. supports the Revenue. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue and hold that the classification of the goods in question will be determined as pointed out by the Revenue i.e. as held by the original authority. rdquo 2. emsp We also observe that the lower appellate authority while deciding the order impugned in Rungta Engineering rsquo s case had relied upon the Order-in-Appeal impugned before us today in this matter. 3. emsp Having regard to the Explanatory Notes to H.S.N. on which the present Central Excise Tariff is undoubtedly patterned, the goods would be classifiable under Tariff Heading 7318.10. We order accordingly. In other words, appeal of the Revenue is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1997 (9) TMI 550 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - Proof - Evidence - Appreciation of - Expert witness - Precedent - Words and phrases – ‘Denierage’ - Exemption - Pre-oriented yarn - Accountal of goods - Stock taking by Department - Order - Confiscation
........
|
