|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 551 Records
-
2000 (7) TMI 975
... ...
... ... ..... It is against the said judgment the appellants are in appeal before us. DURING the course of hearing, we inquired from learned counsel for the parties as to whether any final notification, including certain area within the limits of the Tarikere. Town Panchayat consequent upon the notification dated 22-8-1997 has been issued or not. Learned counsel for the the parties stated that so far no such notification has been issued. Under such facts and circumstances, we feel that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was pre-mature and ought n ot to have been entertained by the High Court. Merely by issue of a notification dated 22-8-1997, none of the rights of the petitioner were affected. Therefore, a decision on the basis of the notification dated 22-8-1997 was totally unnecessary. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order of the High Court shall stand modified. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order to costs.Order accordingly.
-
2000 (7) TMI 974
... ...
... ... ..... ew to levy additional duty on an imported article so as to counter-balance the excise duty leviable on the like article indigenously made. In other words Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act has been enacted to provide for a level playing field to the present or future manufacturers of the like articles in India ..." 17. Mr. Thakore submitted that one has to assume that the importer had actually manufactured the goods in India, as pointed out by the Apex Court in Motiram Tolaram vs. Union of India, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 749 (S.C.). 18. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Circular is not in accordance with law and by such Circular, direction cannot be given to make the assessment in a particular fashion only. 19. In the result, we quash the impugned Circular No. 38/2000-Cus. dated 10th May, 2000, produced as Annexure 'A'. The petitions are accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (7) TMI 973
... ...
... ... ..... of the civil court, is mentioned at S.Nos.19, 20 and 21 of Schedule II. Further, it is not every suit of declaration that is barred under Section 331; the categories of declaration which cannot be granted by a civil court are those mentioned against S.No.34 and they are of the types specified in Sections 229, 229-B and 229-C. We have perused those provisions. The suit filed by Bal Karan does not fall under any of the aforementioned sections. The only ground on which the suit was held to be barred was that the appellants were asamis and their ejectment could not be granted by the civil court. A finding recorded by the civil court on the question of jurisdictional fact is binding on the parties to the suit. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the Deputy Director (Consolidation). The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
2000 (7) TMI 972
... ...
... ... ..... ugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Theissue involved in the present appeal has been settled by theTribunal in the case of Awadh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. supra wherein itwas held that when there was a change in the parameters, Rule 5is not the relevant Clause for determination of Annual Productionof capacity and Rule 4 will be the relevant rules for determiningthe Annual Production Capacity. Admittedly, there is a change inthe parameters of 16 Inches Mill in the factory of appellants andaccordingly, following the ratio of Awadh Alloys Pvt. Ltd.decision, we agree with the Ld. Advocate that their AnnualCapacity has to be determined in terms of Rule 4 of the saidRules. Accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the appellantswith consequential relief, if any, subject to the decision of theSupreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. as reportedin 1997 (17) RLT 907 ( S.C.-L.B. ). 1997 (89) ELT 247 ( SC ). Pronounced & dictated in open court.
-
2000 (7) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... easoning, the Supreme Court held that what has been paid as salary by the firm to a partner is really the share of profits paid to him. It would appear that the Legislature has recognised this principle by enacting a fiction in section 28(v). If really the remuneration has to be treated as a return of the share of profits by the firm to the partner, it follows that the partner should be entitled to all the deductions which he was hitherto entitled while computing his share of profits in the firm including the deduction in respect of interest paid on monies borrowed for investment in the firm as capital under section 67(3). Section 36(1)(iii) enacts the same principle. The assessee in the present case is therefore, entitled to the deduction of the interest paid on monies borrowed for investment in the firm in which he is a partner, against the amount received by him from the firm as remuneration and assessed under the head business. I direct accordingly and allow the appeals.
-
2000 (7) TMI 970
... ...
... ... ..... t found that though a second lease-deed executed between the parties (on the expiry of the period mentioned in the first lease-deed) is void for want of registration, the tenant would continue to be protected under the relevant Rent Control Act because on the expiry of the period of first lease the tenant had acquired the right of a statutory tenant. None of the observations made in the above decision is in conflict with the view expressed by us above. Appellant occupied the building as a tenant and he paid rent to the landlord and continued as such. Hence with the coming into force of Rent Act he became a statutory tenant whose eviction can be considered only when an application is moved in that behalf before the Rent Control Court concerned. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The suit filed by the respondent will stand dismissed without prejudice to the right of the respondent to move under the provision of the Rent Act.
-
2000 (7) TMI 969
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 968
... ...
... ... ..... atil, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... ti-dumping duty. The matter raising similar questions has been considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 167/2000. In view of that decision, this petition is required to be allowed on the same terms and conditions which are imposed in the said petition. #. This petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2000 (7) TMI 966
... ...
... ... ..... own officer as he is not active and prefers to remain inactive. ##. In view of these facts and circumstances, we direct the Union of India to release the goods on taking a bond from the petitioners and we further direct the petitioners to file an undertaking in this Court. We further direct that the exercise of assessment will be completed by the Revenue officers within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the writ. The undertaking shall be filed by all Directors of the Company within a week. At the time of making assessment, the observations made by this Court in this judgment shall not be born in mind by the Proper Officer and he shall make assessment independently without being influenced by the order passed by this Court. ##. Copy of undertakings filed in this Court shall be given to the counsel for the Union of India and the officer concerned under the signature of learned advocate on record. ##. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2000 (7) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... inst an order of the Tribunal taking the same view in relation to the very same respondent, we see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 964
... ...
... ... ..... duty on an imported article so as to counter-balance the excise duty leviable on the like article indigenously made. In other words Section 3 of the customs Tariff Act has been enacted to provide for a level playing field to the present or future manufacturers of the like articles in India......” 15. Mr. Thakore submitted that one has to assume that the importer had actually manufactured the goods in India, as pointed out by the Apex Court in Motiram Tolaram v. Union of India, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 749 (S.C.) 16. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Circular is not in accordance with law and by such Circular, direction cannot be given to make the assessment in a particular fashion only. 17. In the result, we quash the impugned Circular No. 38/2000-Cus., dated 10th May, 2000, produced as Annexure ‘A’. The petitions are accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (7) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... tion of this Court and in terms of the decision taken by the Industries Department as aforesaid. 2.. Having regard to the urgency of the matter, the petitioner through its representative is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ranchi, on 20th July, 2000 at 11 a.m. along with a copy of this order who will either hear the matter on the same day or fix a date according to his convenience, but in any cost he must dispose of the matter finally, as early as possible, latest by August 7, 2000. It goes without saying that if the representative of the petitioner fails to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on the date fixed, the respondent-authority will be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and pass order positively within the time aforesaid. 3.. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. 4.. Meanwhile, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (7) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... epartment concerned, it is apparent that it would be inequitable to ask the dealer at this stage to pay the tax from his own pocket inasmuch as when the agreement was entered into with the department concerned sales tax was not leviable and so at that stage the dealer could not have asked the department to pay the sales tax. This observation of ours would not however apply to sales to private persons. 15.. When the petitioners are required to pay additional tax by virtue of retrospective provisions of law, they cannot be debarred from collecting the same, more so, when they are to collect from the other department of the Government. It is, therefore, provided that the above directions shall also cover the present cases and the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the above directions, but they will be liable to pay the tax as assessed by the concerned authorities. 16.. In the result, all the three writ petitions are dismissed as stated above. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 961
... ...
... ... ..... ccordingly, hold that it holds the field. In the result, the appeal in Tax Case (A) No. 241 of 1983 is dismissed. In so far as the appeal in Tax Case (A) No. 242 of 1983 is concerned, in the light of the view expressed in the other appeal, and also in view of the introduction of entry 139 of the First Schedule to the Act with effect from July 25, 1977 providing for levy of tax on essences and squashes , we are inclined to relegate the matter to the assessing authority to revise the assessment accordingly in the light of the findings rendered above by subjecting the turnover up to May 24, 1977 relating to sales of Nannari syrup under entry 91 and, thereafter, under entry 139 of the First Schedule to the Act. Consequently, the order of the Joint Commissioner II, dated August 31, 1982 made in reference No. F3/8934/78 is set aside in whole and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority to pass fresh order of assessment in accordance with the judgment delivered by us.
-
2000 (7) TMI 960
... ...
... ... ..... w. Hence, there is no material to vary or disagree with the concurrent finding of the lower authorities that there was only local sale and not high sea sales. So, this question of fact need not be interfered in both the revisions. 13.. Hence, for the reason stated above, the levy of tax at 8 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 3,71,00,211 for the assessment year 198586 (in T.A. No. 336/91) and on a turnover of Rs. 2,62,93,033 for the assessment year 1986-87 (T.A. No. 337/91) by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by confirming the finding of the lower authorities in respect of the newsprint under TNGST Act is perfectly valid in law and thereby the orders of the Appellate Tribunal are hereby confirmed. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 14th day of July, 2000. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 959
... ...
... ... ..... ecause in the circumstances of the case, the eligibility certificate itself was liable to be withdrawn under subrule (8) of rule 28A of the Rules which would entail the same consequences. We are unable to accept this argument. We cannot proceed on the assumptions that the eligibility certificate has been withdrawn without there being any recourse to the procedure laid down under subrule (8) of rule 28A of the Rules. In the absence of any action under the said provision we cannot possibly opine on its correctness or otherwise. However, if the respondents have a case for withdrawal of the eligibility certificate under subrule (8) of Rule 28A of the Rules, they shall be free to proceed in accordance with law and nothing observed by us in this petition shall prejudice their rights under that provision. 13.. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (7) TMI 958
... ...
... ... ..... issed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) vide order dated December 20, 1984 which has been upheld by the Tribunal in second appeal filed by the applicant under section 10 of the Act by impugned order dated November 9, 1990. 3.. I have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. It is not in dispute that consignment in question was accompanied with form No. XXXI containing full particulars. However, the said form has been declared obsolete by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., which was not in the knowledge of the applicant. There was no intention to evade the payment of tax and merely because the applicant s consignment was accompanied by form No. XXXI which was declared obsolete cannot make the applicant liable for penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act. The orders imposing the penalty upon the applicant are hereby set aside. 4.. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 957
... ...
... ... ..... ly to establish by evidence that the fictional sales were in the course of import, or inter-State sales. As the points raised by the petitioners are purely on question of fact, which could be considered only by the appellate authority, the relief sought for in these original petitions to set aside the orders of assessments cannot be granted. Therefore, all these original petitions are dismissed. The petitioner contends that appeals have not been filed in O.P. Nos. 804 of 2000 and 805 of 2000. If, as stated by the petitioner, appeals have not been filed, the time taken for these proceedings shall be excluded for computation of the period of limitation for filing appeal. Original documents, if any filed, shall be returned to the petitioner. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 5th day of July, 2000. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 956
... ...
... ... ..... sold or served in a bar attached hotel or a star hotel. Bar attached hotels can be conducted only by the holder of an FL3 licence issued under the Abkari Rules. Admittedly the assessee is not a holder of FL3 licence. She is only conducting a foreign liquor shop. The hotel business conducted by her is independent though the same is attached to the foreign liquor shop. The conduct of the restaurant in a building attached to the foreign liquor shop will not make the restaurant a bar attached restaurant. The department has no case that liquor is supplied in the restaurant. In this case, the finding of the Tribunal is that the sales turnover of cooked food is below rupees five lakhs. Even if the turnover is above rupees five lakhs, in view of the notification S.R.O. No. 1003/91 the same is not liable to tax. The Tribunal, according to us, is perfectly justified in deleting the turnover of cooked food from the assessment. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
