|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 508 Records
-
1998 (7) TMI 663 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... sult, I hold that the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Alipore Charge, who effected the impugned seizures at the applicant s office at Diamond Harbour Road is competent to effect search and seizure at that place and the said impugned seizure is valid. 31.. The application is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Order 32.. According to the judgment of the majority (constituted of the Honourable Chairman and Honourable Technical Member), the application is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to dispose of, according to law, the pending application for amendment of registration certificate on the ground of change of place of business within a period of four weeks from today after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to return the seized books of account and documents to the company within two weeks from today, if necessary, after retaining photocopies of the same. No order is made for cost. Application allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 662 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of the curtailment in the exemption before they came to set up their industries. In Thamarappally Rubber Products v. Additional Sales Tax Officer 1994 94 STC 178 (Ker) the import of the second notification was not considered and will not apply to this case. 10.. Therefore, the subsequent notification is deemed to have superseded the first notification and limited the concession only to a maximum period of seven years. All other interpretations would be violative of articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India. For the above reasons I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the impugned circulars. They are valid and enforceable and are binding. The petitioners are not entitled for the declaration. All the concessions have to be made in pursuance to and applying the second notification and circulars. Accordingly the original petitions are dismissed. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 28372 of 1997 and 10940 of 1998 in O.P. No. 15801 of 1997 dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 661 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amination itself. That the authorities also continued to accept the returns of the petitioner even up to March, 1992 even though the case had been transferred to 33rd circle would only further strengthen this stand of the defence. In the circumstances, the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with section 12-B(1) of the Act read with rule 17 of the Rules. 6.. Petitions are allowed. Conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under section 29(1)(g) of the Act in all the cases concerned. Petitioner is directed to submit form No. 3 together with the documents concerned in respect of each of the months concerned, i.e., from April, 1992 to October, 1994 within two months from today. If the said returns are not filed within two months from today, the authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law for such failure. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 660 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n 9A is premature at this stage. 44.. In the result, the application is dismissed without order for cost. ORDER 45.. In view of the judgments of the majority (constituted of the honourable Judicial Member and the honourable Technical Member), the application is allowed in part. Respondents are restrained from giving effect to or acting upon the impugned notice dated November 15, 1996. The interim order of this Tribunal dated January 6, 1997 is made absolute. No order for cost. After the judgments are delivered Mr. Sumit Ghosh, learned advocate for the respondents, orally prays for stay of operation of the judgment and order for twelve weeks. Mrs. Swapna Das, learned advocate for the applicant, opposes the prayer. The prayer for stay is granted unanimously for eight weeks from today. The operation of the judgment and order shall remain stayed for eight weeks from now. The interim order dated January 6, 1997 shall continue during the period of stay. Application partly allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 659 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o liable to be accepted. The case of the petitioner is that the assessment order dated September 29, 1995 for the assessment year 1994-95 was reviewed and a fresh order of reassessment was passed without giving any notice to it. This fact has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 16 of his writ petition, which has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Here there is a complete absence of notice before order of review/rectification of the assessment order was passed. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained being illegal and without jurisdiction. 16.. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notice dated July 23, 1997, the order dated July 25, 1997 and the notice of demand issued pursuant thereto are quashed. No costs. 17.. The respondents will have the liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law, if they so desire and pass appropriate order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 658 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anch transfer, as being in violation of the provisions of articles 301 and 304(a)(b) of the Constitution of India. A decision of the Division Bench in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. is reported in 1998 108 STC 219 (Ker) 1997 1 KLT 802 whereby the decision of a learned single Judge reported in Associated Cement s case 1996 101 STC 28 (Ker) was affirmed. The said decision according to me has no relevance so far as the question involved in this case is concerned. 9.. Having considered the matter on all angles, I am of the view that the first respondent has rightly understood the scope and content of the notification while passing exhibit P2 reassessment order. I do not find any illegality in the said order. There is no merit in this O.P. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 13669 of 1997 in O.P. No. 7698 of 1997 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 657 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty which have now been raised, as such it could not be considered. 9.. Time for retaining the seized document is stated to have extended by the respondent and communicated to the petitioner from time to time. In K.B. Handicrafts Emporium v. State of Haryana 1993 90 STC 477 (SC), it was observed that the question whether a particular sale or penultimate sale is a question of fact and has to be decided by the appropriate authority. The exhibits were verified in the presence of the assessee. The validity of the order passed for transfer of the case or extension have not been challenged in this petition and in the prayer clause only the order dated February 24, 1995 for the year 1989-90 has been alleged as violative of articles 14, 19, 265 and 300-A of the constitution. I do not feel any case for interference is made out even on merits. Therefore, I do not consider that the jurisdiction under article 226 could be invoked. Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 656 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g can be treated as turnover which does not represent either sale price or the purchase price. The sale price or the purchase price is nothing but the price paid for goods while purchasing or selling. After invoicing the price of the goods allowing the trade discount, the balance amount is the price received of the goods sold and not the amount before deduction and therefore the trade discount/cash discount cannot be treated as total turnover at all. If the amount of Rs. 3,47,685 which was given as discount is deducted then taxable turnover comes to Rs. 8,68,908 which would be less than Rs. 10,00,000 and therefore turnover tax would not be leviable. It is not disputed that the turnover tax is leviable in case the total taxable turnover is Rs. 10,00,000 or above. 8.. For the reasons stated this appeal is accepted. Order of the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority is held to be correct. Appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 655 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Boost, Complan, etc. Barley is used for manufacturing alcoholic products, such as, whisky, beer, etc., by fermentation and other process. The product manufactured by the use of malted barley may be an industrial product but it does not make the malted barley or malt itself an industrial product, which is only one of the raw material of such an industrial product. By use of rice and other foodgrains a large number of alcoholic products are being manufactured equally but that would not make rice and other foodgrains as industrial product. Malted barley continues to be a foodgrain and must squarely fall under item No. 3 of the notification dated April 30, 1977. It is a cereal, other than a cereal as defined in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As such, it is entitled to be taxed at the rate provided under the said notification only. Accordingly, the revision application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 654 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ht to the notice of the appellate authority or not. If this fact has been brought to the notice of the appellate authority, then the assessee would not have been required to make the payment of 50 per cent of the demand. The order which has been passed also does not contain any reason to show that the mind was properly applied. In other words, it cannot be considered to be a speaking order. Normally in a matter of discretion, this Court will not interfere in such an order except where the judicial review is necessary in the interest of justice. If the reasons are not recorded in the order or there is no proper application of mind that are the factors which could be considered by this Court. Accordingly, annexure G is quashed and the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) is directed to hear the stay application of the petitioner afresh within 3 weeks from the date of submission of copy of this order. 9.. Writ petitions stand disposed of with the above observations.
-
1998 (7) TMI 653 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d, cannot clothe the check-post officer with jurisdiction to do something which he was not expected to do under the provisions of section 28-A of the Act. His job was to ascertain whether the prescribed documents accompanied the vehicle and the goods which in turn were liable to tax under the Act. Anything else he did would be without jurisdiction and we have no hesitation to state, that on account of his total misdirection, there was improper exercise of jurisdiction and the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the first appellate authority as well as Checkpost Officer are, therefore, liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. 8.. In our view, the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment correctly enunciated the law on the point. We respectfully follow the said view. 9.. The revision is accepted. The orders of the authorities below are set aside and the penalty levied is quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to costs which is assessed at Rs. 1,000. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (7) TMI 652 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ound that such exemption is not available to the assessee, penalty or prosecution provision under section 29(2)(c) cannot be invoked. 16.. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners are liable to pay tax on the sale of strip of labels and are not entitled for exemption under entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule. The dispute regarding section 29(1)(e) of the Act is not adjudicated. There would be no liability of penalty on the petitioners under section 29(2)(c) of the Act. If there is any dispute with regard to the turnover or any other factual aspect, the petitioners may file appeal within four weeks from today. In cases where proposition notices have been issued, objections may be filed within four weeks from today. The matter regarding section 29(1)(e) of the Act would be examined by the assessing authority and no action under section 29(2)(c) in accordance with the notice would be taken. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 651 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... filed a writ petition before the High Court where the High Court had re-examined the facts. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The respondent will be at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy of revision, if he so desires. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (7) TMI 650 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ned in heading suggests that they have to be of the type which are mentioned in the earlier headings because the earlier headings are either articles or are textile products subjected to some process. Merely because the cotton fabric manufactured by the appellants is used in tea industry without any further process it cannot be said that it is an industrial fabric alternative uses of the fabric not having been ruled out by the lower authorities. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the process of manufacture we are of the view that the correct heading most akin to the product in question would be Tariff Heading 52.05 and not 59.09. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. 2. emsp In view of the above, we hold that classification of the goods cotton fabric grey (filter cloth) is Tariff Heading 52.05. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (7) TMI 649 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... ant to read the provision regarding condoning delay in appeals under Section 35 into applications under Section 35E. In the absence of any provisions in Section 35E for condonation of delay, it has to be held that it is not legally permissible to entertain a delayed application under Section 35E. We are in agreement with the ratio of the West Regional Bench Order No. 3908-11/97/WRB, dated 23-9-97 in this regard. From the perusal of the impugned order of CEGAT, we also feel that the order was passed under the mistaken impression that Commissioner has power to allow delayed application filed under Section 35E. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court clarifies that the Tribunals have authority to correct such mistakes of law. In the result, we allow the ROM application. Consequently, the Tribunal rsquo s Final Order No. 67/96-C, Stay Order No. 9/96-C, dated 7-12-95 is recalled and it is ordered that the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur is rejected.
-
1998 (7) TMI 648 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import of aircraft for purpose of flight - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ellants of getting the aircraft registered in India. We find substantial force in the submission of the learned SDR that there was no sanction of non-observance of the condition merely by accepting the bill of entry and duty by the Department, so as to make the provisions of Section 111(o) non-applicable. The provisions of Rule 58(6)(b) of the Aircraft Rules are very specific as they exclude not only the Aircraft registered in India but also the lsquo Aircraft intended to be registered in India rsquo from the proviso of Rule 58(6)(a). In view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that the penalty is imposable on the appellants under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, looking into the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice will meet if a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs only is imposed on the appellants. We, therefore, reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs only. But for this modification, the appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (7) TMI 647 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Dutiability - Marketability - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... om that angle also, they do not become goods so as to attract Central Excise duty. Thus, on merits, we hold that no duty was chargeable on double/multifold/twisted yarn of the appellants. We also agree with the contention of the appellant that mention in a notification of a particular product does not make that product goods. 19. emsp On limitation also, we find that the appellants had been manufacturing PVC Conveyor Belting for a long time. According to the appellant, the process of manufacture was sent to the Revenue authorities. They were conducting inspections regularly and, thus, there was no reason as to why they have not raised the issue that the appellant rsquo s products were double/multifold/twisted cotton/nylon yarn, singly or jointly. Thus, even on limitation, the appellants have proved the case in their favour. 20. emsp In view of the above findings, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1998 (7) TMI 646 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 207/88-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... when application for refund was filed by the appellant and on the basis of the said classification, an exemption relevant to that classification was ignored while charging the additional duty of Customs. 5.1 emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue in so far as the benefit of Notification 207/88-C.E. to the segments is concerned. EDITOR rsquo S COMMENTS It is submitted that this decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Prestige Engg. (I) Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) - wherein it was held that expressions defined in the Act should be understood in the same sense if used in the Rules and notifications issued under the said Act. Further in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), it was held that Chapter Notes of the Tariff Chapter referred to in the notification have to be read as part and parcel of the said notification.
-
1998 (7) TMI 642 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... breakdown as mentioned by the respondents in their affidavit dated 19-3-1998, and a letter addressed to Wartsila Diesel Qy. Finland, dated 16-9-1996 (exhibit 4 to the said affidavit-in-reply), requesting them to depute their ABB experts to chalk out the action plan immediately, so far as the respondents are concerned, in that event the same should have been returned to the petitioners instead of accrediting the lease rentals to their account and, therefore, the argument advanced on their behalf cannot be sustained and, therefore, in view of the fact that the ownership rights vest in the petitioners, the petitioners have a right to seek protection of their property. 26. Hence, the petition made absolute in terms of prayer (a) by which the Court receiver is appointed in respect of the equipment described in the scheduled exhibit A to the petition. The receiver will appoint the respondents as receiver rsquo s agent on such terms and conditions as to royalty but without security.
-
1998 (7) TMI 641 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Articled clerks - Payment of stipend ... ... ... ... ..... d, hence, it could not be said that it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. It could also be seen that the amendment has come into force from 1-10-1989, and it did not have the retrospective effect. In this case, the petitioners rsquo counsel in support of his contention was not able to produce any material before this Court to show that he hired the articled clerks on contract. In the absence of such material, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not bound by the regulations. It is to be seen that fixation of the stipend based on the population will not affect the financial capacity of the petitioners. Hence, the contention of the petitioners rsquo counsel that fixing the stipend based on the population is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 is not tenable. In view of the above position and relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pichaikutty rsquo s case (supra), the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are dismissed.
........
|
