|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 479 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 662
... ...
... ... ..... nt of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriucltural Lands Amendment Act, 1969, but being in possession of the land on such commencement, is desirous of exercising the right conferred on lhim lunder sub-section(1) he may give such intimation to the landlord and the Tribunal within a period of two years from the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the tenant was given an additional opportunity to give intimation after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1969. Even this opportunity was not availed fo by the tenant. The respondent has thus continued as a tenant. His tenancy can be terminated under Section 43-IB. In the permises the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the application of the appellant was barred under Section 43-IE. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore the order of the Sub-divisional Officer as confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 661
... ...
... ... ..... Rao, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 660
... ...
... ... ..... ing tax at a lower rate. Therefore, in this case too the default punishable under Section 10-A read with Section 10 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act was established against the dealer respondent. 13. For the above reasons, these revision petitions deserve to be allowed. However, since the Tribunal has not adverted to the quantum of the penalty that should reasonably be levied on the respondent, the matter will have to be sent back to the Tribunal to decide this part of the respondent's appeals. 14. The revision petitions are, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders referred to above are set aside and it is held that the respondents committed default within the meaning of Section 10-A read with Section 10 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and rendered themselves liable to levy of penalty. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals in accordance with this finding after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of hearing on the other aspects involved in the appeals.
-
1998 (11) TMI 659
... ...
... ... ..... ntral Excise v. Ram Body Builders reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) this appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 658
... ...
... ... ..... s carriers etc. and is synonymous with formulation. 41. From a reading of the Tariff Item 38.08 and the Chapter Notes as amended from time to time we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that there is a distinction between pesticides or insecticides to be sold in the retail market or in bulk form or that the tariff description of heading 38.08 was amended to cover only pesticides/ insecticides put in the form for packing for retail sale excluding pesticides in bulk forms. We have examined Chapters 28 and 29 and we do not agree that bulk pesticides are to be treated as separate chemically defined elements or compounds covered under the said Chapters. 42. For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed. The impugned circular No. 348/64/97-CX, dated 28-10-1997 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs is directed to be struck down. All the notices issued and actions taken based on the said circular shall also stand quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 657
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, the question when read in the light of the narration in the revision petition would show that the Commissioner has in fact raised this question that in the face of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the order allowing the appeal is unsustainable. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel can raise this question, as is reflected by ground No. 2 and as is permissible by virtue of subsection (4) of Section 11 of the Act. Reliance is placed on M/s. Jeetmal Ram Gopal v. Addl. Judge (Revision), 1974 U.P.T.C. 555 and M/s. IFFCO v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1995 U.P.T.C. 579. There is nothing in these rulings that may help the dealer respondent at the present stage of the proceeding. 8. For the above reasons, the revision petitions are allowed and the order 8th February, 1990 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal (now Trade Tax Tribunal) is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass suitable orders in terms of Section 11 (8) of the Act, in accordance with this judgment.
-
1998 (11) TMI 656
... ...
... ... ..... rder was made by the Company Law Board at Delhi. 10. The ratio of the decision by their Lordships in the case of Stride Well Leather's (supra) lends support to the view taken by the High Court of Delhi in the cases arising under the Income-tax Act, the Customs Act and the Central Excises Act. We are clearly of the opinion that the jurisdiction to hear the petition under Section 35-G(3) of the Central Excises act, 1944 lies with the High Court having jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings have originated and not the High court of Delhi merely because the main seat of CEGAT is situated at Delhi and because the appeal was heard and decided at Delhi. 11. The petition is dismissed for want of territorialj urisdiction in the High Court of Delhi. Needless to say that the petitioner shall have the liberty to approach the competent High Court,which in our opinion is the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking appropriate relief. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 655
... ...
... ... ..... before them. Our reading of the evidence leads to grave doubt about the veracity of the complainant and he benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. 4. We think that we should impress upon the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Council that their orders in disciplinary matters should be speaking orders, they must set out the reasons for which they are passed. Where the orders are based upon evidence as is usually the case with complaints against advocates, there must be some analysis of the evidence and the conclusion must be based on such analysis. It is not enough to state the conclusions without indicating the material on the record upon which such conclusions (sic) based. 5. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The complaint filed by the third respondent is dismissed. C.A. No. 2626 of 1997 6. Having regard to the conclusion we have reached in the above appeal, this appeal against the review petition does not survive. It is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 654
... ...
... ... ..... to the effect that "that the Government of India is fully alive to the situation and its gravity and is taking all necessary steps to protect the interest of the nation". From the statement filed by the learned Solicitor General of India today in Court, we find that steps are being taken in that behalf. We take the statement of the learned Solicitor General of India on record and dispose of this application. It is consigned to record.
-
1998 (11) TMI 653
... ...
... ... ..... fore, would not apply. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the subsequent Act of 1954 restricted the application of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 brought into force by the earlier Hyderabad Act of 1952. As is pointed out by the High Court, the Act of 1954 was enacted by way of abundant caution, to make sure that the agricultural lands were not considered as excluded from the scope of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as enacted in 1952. The second Act is, therefore, clarificatory. The High Court has dealt at length with various decisions of this Court and other Court on thee question of interpretation of the said statute. Since we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court, we are not again examining the cases referred to by the High Court. We, therefore, affirm the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the High Court and dismiss this appeal. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 652
... ...
... ... ..... g jurisdiction in the matter to which the reference relates. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 31, where in any reference any application under the Arbitration Act has been made in a court competent to entertain it, that court alone has jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that reference. The High Court has held that the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin has no jurisdiction in view of the earlier orders of the High Court. The notice of the Subordinate Court is, therefore, invalid. 7. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matters are remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court for disposal of objections on merit. 8. Since a considerable time has been spent already in litigating the matter after the publication of the award, if the parties make an application to the High Court for expeditious hearing, the High Court may consider that application sympathetically.
-
1998 (11) TMI 651
... ...
... ... ..... nd at any place between Samalkha Barrier and the Delhi-Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey. Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act states that "any person who attempts to contravene, or abets a contravention of, any order made under section 3 shall be deemed to have contravened that order". But there is no provision in the Act which makes a preparation to commit an offence punishable. It follows therefore that the appellants should not have been convicted under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. For these reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the sentence of fine imposed upon each of them. We also set aside the conviction and sentence of Qimat Rai and the order of forfeiture passed by the trial Magistrate with regard to 75 bags of paddy and truck no. P.N.U. 967. The fines, if paid by any of the convicted persons must be refunded. Appeal Allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 650
... ...
... ... ..... ms Packaging case. He submits that the facts of their case are identical to the facts which came up for decision in the case of Systems Packaging case. He submits that the Tribunal has in these two decisions held that cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that in the case of Relco Paper Products cited supra, the Tribunal no doubt had before it, the case pertaining to the period when old tariff was existing but what the Tribunal decided was about manufacture. We also note that in the case of Systems Packaging, identical facts were before the Tribunal when the Tribunal held that slitting of jumbo rolls into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture. Following the decision in these two cases, we hold that slitting of jumbo rolls of thermal paper into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 649
... ...
... ... ..... 4, 55 and 60 of 1976 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. V.C. Antony). When by judgment dated August 24, 1978 this Court held that dressed chicken is nothing but meat which is exempt. Following the said judgment we reiterate that dressed chicken is meat and hence is exempt. Both the T.R.Cs. therefore, fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 648
... ...
... ... ..... rce and payment in Government treasury was held not to be an unreasonable restriction on right to carry on business. 27.. We have carefully gone through the decisions so relied on. In our opinion, none of the decisions has any bearing on the case at hand. 28.. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned amendment is ultra vires the rule-making authority of the Administrator/Lt. Governor. Out of the three contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners inasmuch as we have found the impugned rule liable to be struck down on the first contention itself, we do not deem it necessary to enter into the other two contentions. 29.. The petitions are allowed. Sub-clause (ii) inserted in clause (c) of sub-rule (4) of rule 8 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 by notification dated February 11, 1997 is declared ultra vires the authority of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi (being the rule-making authority) and struck down. No order as to the costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 647
... ...
... ... ..... otification dated September 23, 1998 cannot be considered to be invalid on the ground that it was not in force on the date of issue and was made applicable for past transactions only. (5) Notification dated September 23, 1998 is a valid piece of legislation. It is however declared that tax shall not be levied or collected for the period from April 1, 1994 to January 6, 1998 for entry of goods in local area when the goods are brought from other areas of the State of Karnataka and also when the goods have been imported from outside the State of Karnataka and are meant for sale. (6) Entry 2-A by notification dated November 9, 1998 prescribing rate of tax at 8 per cent from April 1, 1995 is ultra vires the power of section 3(1) of the Act. (7) In cases where assessments were already framed, the assessee would be free to file appeals within four weeks and where notice alone has been issued, they may submit objections within the aforesaid period. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 646
... ...
... ... ..... e of manufacture are entitled for the same treatment. The denial of the same rate of tax to SSI units having factories outside Kerala is a discrimination and violative of articles 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution. 7.. For the above reasons, exhibit P2 notification as amended from time to time is quashed to the extent of granting concessional rate of sales tax at 4 per cent on biscuits manufactured by SSI units in Kerala alone and it is declared that the concessional rate is available to all SSI units manufacturing biscuits outside Kerala. In the circumstances, the declaration of invalidity of impugned notification shall take effect from the date of this judgment. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any amount by way of refund or otherwise by virtue of or as a consequence of this declaration. The original petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent stated above. Order on C.M.P. No. 635 of 1998 in O.P. No. 435 of 1998-B dismissed. Petitions allowed accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 645
... ...
... ... ..... armonious interpretation of a statute. On principle, unless there is clear provision, a construction which leads to such dichotomy has to be avoided. 27.. As a result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, by holding that for the period in question the sales made against the certificate in form Nos. 17-A and 19 after the date of receipt of exemption certificate under entry 118 of the Government notification under section 49(2) of the Act or even before that date are not liable to be discarded and the provision applicable thereto would be required to be taken into consideration and tax liability in respect of such transactions has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of parent Act requiring computation of taxable turnover in accordance with law without reference to exemption under the scheme under entry 118. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1998 (11) TMI 644
... ...
... ... ..... e year from July, 1987 to June, 1988. In view of the specific legal position spelt out in clause (aa) such hypothetical calculation of taxable aggregate turnover for the whole year for the purpose of fixing the rate of turnover tax is mandatory. The change-over of the accounting year corresponding to November-October actually effective from November 1, 1987 will not protect the company from its liability to pay turnover tax at the rate of 1.5 per cent. 8.. Accordingly, we hold that the assessing authority had not committed any mistake in fixing the turnover tax at 1.5 per cent for the concerned broken Here italicised. period and the assessment for the said period at such rate is valid and binding on the applicant. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the orders of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and the Board in that regard. 9.. In the result, the application is dismissed without any order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 643
... ...
... ... ..... d make submissions in their defence. It is premature to say what would be the decision after hearing of the said applicants. Moreover, if there is eventually any decision against them, they can challenge it before the appropriate forum. Since issue of impugned notices is not impermissible under the law we do not find at this stage any ground to interfere. 8.. In view of the discussions above we do not find any illegality in the notices, the first two of which, in fact, are just some communications urging the company and its directors to make payment and intimating the next probable actions to be followed. The last notice dated March 5, 1998 is only a letter in reply to the company s letter, clarifying certain points relating to a director s liability for a company s statutory obligations. 9.. Accordingly, the instant application may be disposed of without exchange of affidavits. In the result, the application is dismissed without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.
........
|
