|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 508 Records
-
1998 (7) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt of the negligence on the part of his counsel, ill advising him to file a revision instead of filing a fresh suit? An illiterate litigant cannot be made to suffer when he is ill-advised by his counsel. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the plaintiff-appellant prosecuted the earlier civil proceeding in good faith. For the aforesaid reasons this civil appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently the judgment and order dated 5.9.1985 in Second Appeal No. 2062 of 1984 passed by the High Court is set aside. Since the High court has allowed the second appeal only on the point of limitation, this case is sent back to the High Court for decision on surviving points. The matter being quite old, we request the High court to decide the second appeal expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 682 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... squo;Will’ as already noticed declared and the Compromise decree recognised the right of Smt. Janak Dulari as an "owner in possession" of the suit property with all the "rights and control" over it. The compromise decree did not create any independent or new title in her favour for the first time. Sub-section (2) of Section 14, thus has no application to her case. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 14, the limited interest (even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Smt. Janak Dulari had only a limited interest in the property of which she was in possession as an owner) automatically got enlarged into an absolute one, her case was clearly covered by Section 14(1) of the Act. The impugned judgment of the High Court thus cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court is set-aside and that of the Trial Court restored. The parties are however directed to bear their own costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT
Whether for the purpose of levy of Octroi duty P.V.C. Resins in powder form would fall under plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder' in Item 53(c) of Schedule I to Maharashtra Municipality (Octroi duty) Rules, 1968 framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 or under Item 32(c) of Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octori Rules, 1965 framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Whether for the purpose of levy of Octroi duty Synthetic Hydrocarbon resin is to be treated as Plastic and plastic goods, plastic powder' in Item 32(c) of Schedule H to the Municipal Corporation (Levy of) Octroi Rules 1965 framed under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888?
Held that:- The appropriate manner in which the commodity in the present case, namely, plastic powder, has been treated as a separate entry it is brought to tax under Item No. 32(c) or 53 (c) to Schedule H under the Relevant Rules. Similar would be the position with reference to Hydrocarbon resins. Even Hydrocarbon resin is treated on the same footing as a synthetic plastic and, therefore, the goods in question cannot be treated as plastic goods or plastic powder but as separate goods and therefore, we cannot accept the contention put forth on behalf of the respondents that the said goods are neither plastic in nature nor powder in form and we do not accept the contention that Hydrocarbon resin is distinct from plastic. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation and Municipal Council, Thane and set aside the order made by the High court by declaring the goods as falling within the Entry as stated earlier. In the circumstances of the case, the parties on either side shall bear their respective costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT
Order of detention revoked - Held that:- Since, the validity of the order of detention had been put in issue through a writ petition and the High Court returned no findings on the merits of the case, the petitioner was entitled to question the order of detention while assailing the proceedings initiated under SAFEMA against her. To deny her that right on the ground that after twenty years the challenge to the order of detention could not be received was unjust and improper. Since, there had been no adjudication on the merits of the order of detention by the High Court, though the order had been challenged, the High Court ought to have gone into the question of validity of the order of detention, since the existence of such an order was the sine-qua-non for initiating proceedings under SAFEMA. The order of detention had been challenged and that challenge was not unsuccessful on merits. Appeal allowed - remand the writ petition to the High Court to be disposed of on merits.
-
1998 (7) TMI 679 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was inserted in order to see that the matter does not escape the attention of the Revenue for the subsequent years and such goods held as closing stock in one year, shall continue to be the part of the total turnover for the subsequent years, until they are brought to tax. There was no other purpose of the exemption being introduced. The explanation does not raise a presumption that the purchases which were not made, in fact, during the year 1984-85, could be deemed to have been made during that year. 5.. For these reasons, we hold that the assessee cannot claim exemption under the aforesaid notification in regard to the purchases, admittedly made during the year 1983-84, which were reflected in the closing stock of that year and which formed part of the assessee s total turnover by virtue of the explanation to section 2(xxvi). No other submission was made by counsel for the assessee before us. In the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 678 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e levy of interest also cannot be sustained. 13.. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated December 17, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes in suo motu exercise of revisional power directing fresh assessment by determining the sale price on the basis of the prevailing market rate during the periods in question-not lower than the minimum rate prevailed at that relevant period of time, is set aside. The order disallowing the shortage is, however, upheld. 14.. In view of the above, the consequent assessment orders for the periods mentioned as contained in annexure V series of the writ petition, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, Unit A, is set aside and direct the assessing officer to make fresh assessment as regards the shortage, as mentioned in direction No. (2) of annexure IV to the writ petition. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 677 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o would form part of the cost. The appellant pleads that there was specific agreement between the consignee and himself in that regard and the appellant was charging separately transportation charges for each consignment. But he did not produce any evidence to prove the contention in that regard. Therefore we are not considering this point now as the matter is still open and he can prove his eligibility for exemption before the assessing authority. From the above reproduced finding of the Appellate Tribunal, it is amply clear that the matter remained open and no final finding is recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. However, in para 5 of its orders, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. But that operative portion of the order is to be read subject to the observations made in para 3 of the order. On these facts there is nothing for us to decide. The revision petitions are, accordingly, allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 721 of 1997 in T.R.C. No. 23 of 1997. Dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 676 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on and it is only the amount spent on the investment which is the criteria for calculating exemption. Clause (c) of Explanation II has not placed restriction on additional capacity created but has only mentioned that in calculating the amount of tax exemption, the amount of tax exempted under Notification dated September 27, 1990 shall also be included. This is with a view that if a unit after availing the benefit or during the course of availing the benefit of Notification dated September 27, 1990 has further expanded then the amount of exemption under Notification dated June 19, 1991 will be after adding the benefit of exemption under Notification dated September 27, 1990 and thus the benefit under the two notifications have to be clubbed together. The conditions of Notification dated September 27, 1990 have not been adopted by Notification dated June 19, 1991. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is quashed. Petitions are accordingly allowed. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 675 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respect of the goods declared in form No. 39. It cannot be denied that the goods under transport at the time of interception was 11,400 watch dials. The penalty that is leviable is double the tax payable in respect of the goods under transport and is not related to the extent of evasion, as sought to be suggested. The penalty that has been imposed is double the tax at the rate of 12 per cent on 11,400 watch dials namely Rs. 86,482. In the circumstances, the order impugned is in accordance with law. 8.. The other contention is regarding rejection of documents subsequently produced in support of the petitioner s case. It essentially related to questions of fact found against the petitioner and cannot be challenged in this revision. No case of failure to decide or decided erroneously, the question of law by the Appellate Tribunal, has been made out, calling for interference in revision under section 23 of the Act. The revision has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 674 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other entry. In that view of the matter also, entry 70 prevails over entry 78 of the First Schedule. 7.. Learned counsel for the other side, relied on the judgment reported in Visaka Industries Limited, Secunderabad v. State of Karnataka 1996 (40) Kar LJ 86 wherein, it reads The Tribunal has held that asbestos ridges and gutters are admittedly used as fittings of asbestos sheet roofing, they properly fall under the ordinary meaning of the opening words of the said entry roofing materials (entry 9 of Part R of the Second Schedule). 8.. In the above case, the facts are quite different from the facts which we are concerned now. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the above circumstances, the revision petitions are allowed and held that the plastic sheets which are roofing material falls under entry 70 of the First Schedule entry 7(ii) of Part P of the Second Schedule to the Act. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 673 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case, a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit. We need not go into factual aspect of the matter and we leave it to the authorities to examine that in case the goods purchased by the assessee has already received benefit under sub-section (2) of section 6 by virtue of recognition certificate under section 16-C of the Act, then no benefit can be given and notwithstanding the recognition certificate under section 16-C, it has not availed the concession, the authorities shall redetermine the whole issue. 5.. So far as the question of additional tax is concerned, that matter is no more res integra since no argument has been raised before us in this regard and as such, this question need not be gone into. The authorities are directed to re-examine the matter in the light of observations made above. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 672 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ce with rule 207 cannot be sustained. 25.. In the circumstances mentioned above, we hold that the seizure of the books of accounts from the place of business at 12B, Russell Street (in RN-178 of 1997) and 23B, Kalakar Street (in RN-179 of 1997) on November 1, 1995 are valid. The seizure of books of accounts on October 1, 1996 in the office of the Bureau of Investigation by the A.C.C.T. in RN-179 of 1997 is also held to be valid. The seizure of books of accounts and documents from the residences of the partners at 13, Jatindra Mohan Avenue in RN-178 of 1997 and RN-179 of 1997 is also held to be valid. Retention orders in respect of the books of accounts seized from the residence of the applicants and the business places of the applicants as well as in the office of the Bureau of Investigation in these two cases are also held to be valid. The application are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 671 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... islature in its wisdom has fixed a period of limitation. That does not appear to have been taken note of by the Revenue. Otherwise such casual approach could not have been adopted by it. 12.. In the aforesaid premises, the inevitable conclusion is that the Tribunal has not applied its judicial mind to the question whether delay was to be condoned. 13.. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that fresh application shall be filed giving all the details for consideration by the Tribunal. Order dated June 18, 1996, passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 4340 of 1994-95 is set aside, matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. If any application is filed by the Revenue explaining the delay within three weeks from today, same shall be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits. 14.. The writ application is allowed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs. The records be sent back forthwith. S.C. DATTA, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 670 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner himself who had purchased them. The mere fact that the petitioner who is transporting the goods to Tamil Nadu was not a registered dealer is not relevant nor sufficient to infer an attempt at evasion of tax which is so essential to sustain a detention under section 29A. Since that ingredient is absent and having regard to the documents produced in this case the notice, exhibit P4, and the detention have to be quashed. 5.. So long as the petitioners furnish documents issued by Forest Department evidencing payment of sales tax, sale bill or delivery note or form 27A certificate of ownership, the movement of timber cannot be prevented. 6.. As the original petitions are filed only on an apprehension or contemplated action, no orders are needed except recording the stand of the Government and the legal position. The original petitions are disposed of accordingly. Order on C.M.P. No. 12631 of 1995 in O.P. No. 7178 of 1995-D dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 669 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on in stock of groundnut cake-9312 kgs and (ii) improper maintenance of books, were discussed by the Division Bench and held that they really constitute one offence and would fall within the ambit of section 32(1)(b) of the Act, as the offence does not fall under section 32(1)(a) of the Act, when no attempt is made by the petitioner therein to evade the tax. However, the facts of the present case are different. The intention of the petitioner-firm is only to evade payment of tax and towards that end, the turnover amount of Rs. 1,56,610 is suppressed and therefore, the respondents have rightly brought the offence of the petitioner-firm within the provisions under section 32(1)(a) of the Act, and we see no illegality in the said action of the respondents. 19.. Having regard to the above discussion, we are inclined to hold that the petitioner-firm is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 668 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orms before the assessing authority by remitting the matter to the competent authority. 9.. We have heard the learned Government pleader for Commercial Taxes in this regard. Having heard both the learned counsel and having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the assessing authority could be directed to examine the claim of the petitioner, i.e., that he is entitled to reduction in tax on the turnover to the extent of at least Rs. 9,61,126 on the basis of the C and D forms, which are now in the possession of the petitioner. We accept the submissions and direct the assessing authority to examine the claim of the petitioner on the basis of C and D forms which would be placed before it by the petitioner for the covered turnover of Rs. 9,61,126 and in the course of due verification if they are found to be genuine, it would be open to the assessing authority to grant such relief according to law. The T.R.C. is accordingly ordered. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 667 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vagueness is created with regard to the point of tax, because if there is no liability on second or subsequent point, then the ultimate manufacturer of finished product cannot be asked to prove the source of origin of such goods which have passed in the hands of number of registered dealers. (7) The raw material manufactured by the new unit which is exempt and which is availing benefit of deferment of tax belong to the same class. Subsequent treatment of the product result in inequality and the effect/impact of such inequality is directly on the business of the petitioner and the like. The discrimination in the rate of tax on similar goods is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The basis cannot be considered reasonable. 21.. In view of the above, the proviso to explanation II as inserted by Karnataka Act No. 5 of 1996 is declared discriminatory and therefore struck down as violative of article 14 of the Constitution. Writ petition is allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 666 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee is of the magnitude of Rs. 48,32,448. Stock variation is only to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and that too on a single date, viz., March 5, 1988. Considering these facts, the appellate authority reduced the estimated turnover to three times of the suppressed turnover. To reverse the order of the appellate authority, the Appellate Tribunal should have given cogent reasons. The order of the first appellate authority should not be reversed lightly. We do not see any good reasons to reverse the order of the first appellate authority. Rather the order of the Appellate Tribunal is misconceived and wholly unsupported by the facts. In the result, both the T.R.Cs. succeed and are allowed. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated April 18, 1996 is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority, in so far as it estimated the turnover at three times of the suppressed turnover, is restored. Order on C.M.P. No. 3202 of 1997 in T.R.C. No. 200 of 1997 dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 665 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d not be applicable in the present case. In the cases relied upon by the assessees, the entry being glassware and in the absence of any definition in the Act of the word glassware , the popular meaning or the meaning attached to glassware by persons who dealt in that item was resorted to. The present entry being articles made of glass/plastic being clear, the common parlance test or the popular meaning attached to the articles would not be applicable. 18.. It may be relevant to state at this stage that during the relevant point of time as per section 3(6) of the Act, Second Schedule was introduced, whereby certain commodities exempted from levy of entry tax, have been specified in the said Schedule. Neither glass bangles nor plastic bangles finds a place in Schedule II. 19.. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are accepted. Order of the learned single Judge is set aside and orders, annexures A , B and E , are upheld. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 664 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the manufacture of veneers and not in the manufacture of veneer plywood, cannot be an authority for the purpose of the case at hand in which a consistent finding has been recorded by the assessing officer and the appellate authorities that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of veneer plywood, covered by entry 5 of the Fifth Schedule. Moreover, in Southern Veneers and Wood Works Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1997 104 STC 114 (Ker) interpretation of the notification granting exemption was not involved and for that reason also the decision in Southern Veneers and Wood Works Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1997 104 STC 114 (Ker) cannot be pressed into service by the assessee. 5.. For these reasons, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to exemption on the purchase turnover of softwood, used by the assessee for the manufacture of veneer plywood, falling under entry 5 of the Fifth Schedule. In the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
