|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 594 Records
-
2001 (1) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... properties and assets vest with the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the Act, but there are certain other assets which cannot be held to form a part of the assets of Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mill and, therefore, cannot be taken over, the High Court has not considered this question as the Act itself was struck down but it would be meet and proper for the High Court now to consider the same, bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in Sitaram Mills case interpreting the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act on the materials to be produced by the parties. Be it stated that until a decision is given by the High Court on this score, by virtue of operation of law all the assets would stand vested and such vesting would be subject to a final decision of the High Court in respect of any of these so-called assets which the petitioner establishes not to be an asset of Elphinstone Mill notwithstanding the wider meaning given to Section 3(2) in Sitaram Mills case.
-
2001 (1) TMI 965 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be served if their sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to R.I. for 10 years. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1997 filed by A-1 Lal Singh and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1409-1411 of 1999 filed by A-2 Mohd. Sharief are dismissed and their conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned Designated Judge are confirmed. Conviction of A-3 Tahir Jamal, A-4 Mohd. Saquib Nachan and A-20 Shoaib Mukhtiar for the offence under Section 3(3) of TADA Act is confirmed, but their sentence is modified to the extent that they are directed to suffer R.I. for 10 years for the same and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months. However, their conviction and sentence under Section 120B and 120B (1) of I.P.C. imposed by the Designated Court are maintained. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1997, Criminal Appeal No.294 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 407-409 of 1997 filed by A-4, A-20 and A-3 respectively are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
-
2001 (1) TMI 963 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is therefore plain to us that provisions of section 44AB cannot and do not have any application in relation to incomes which are enumerated under Chapter III and are expressly excluded from total income. To reiterate, section 44AB is operational only when profits and gains of business or profession are to be computed for the purpose of computation of total income to meet the requirements of the provisions of section 4. That being so, any income which is designated as "incomes which do not form part of total income" have nothing to do and cannot be subjected to the provisions of section 44AB. 6. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that the assessee before us was not liable to obtain any audit report within the meaning of section 44AB of the Act. For this reason, we further hold that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) cancelling penalty under section 271B cannot be interfered with. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 962 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hen the Magistrate may exercise his discretion and take cognizance of a cognizable offence. In Tula Ram vs. Kishore Singh (supra) a two Judge Bench of this Court, after referring to the earlier decision, reiterated the same legal position. It is unfortunate that when this Court laid down the legal position so explicitly in the above two decisions which reached the notice of the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court he had formulated a position contrary to it by stating that the Magistrate has no power within the contemplation of Section 156(3) of the Code, to ask for registration of the case. It appears that the judicial officers under Punjab and Haryana High Court who were, till then, following the correct position, were asked by the learned Judge to follow the erroneous position formulated by him in the aforesaid judgment. In the present case the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had rightly upheld the course adopted by the magistrate. Hence we dismiss this appeal.
-
2001 (1) TMI 961 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... complaint was not on merits. We do not find much force in the next contention that the complainant lacked bona fides as he suppressed the fact of dismissal of the first complaint. We cannot overlook the fact that the second complaint was filed before the same magistrate who dismissed the first complaint, and that too was done within a short interval. Even otherwise, nothing would turn out from the mere fact that the complaint did not contain an averment that the first complaint was dismissed for default. As the magistrate did not consider the materials on record when he dismissed the first complaint, instead the said course was adopted by him only as a consequence of the default of complainant presenting herself when the case was called, there is no reason to shut the door before her once and for all. The High Court has correctly interfered with the order of the Sessions Court by restoring the complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
-
2001 (1) TMI 960 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... in C.W.J.C. No. 3303 of 1989 and reported in 2001 (138) E.L.T. 3 (Pat.) (Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.v. Union of India). While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court passed the following order - The special leave petition is dismissed. I.A. No. 2 for deletion of the name of the respondent is also dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 959 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... ships 39 House and below against the commissioners. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle My Lords, 30 I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn of Hadley. For the reasons he gives I would also make the order which he proposes. Lord Nolan My Lords, 31 I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn of Hadley. For the reasons he gives I would also make the order which he proposes. Lord Steyn My Lords, 32 I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn of Hadley. For the reasons he gives I would also make the order which he proposes. Lord Hoffmann My Lords, 33 I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn of Hadley. For the reasons he gives I would also make the order which he proposes. Appeal allowed with costs. Solicitors Hutchinson Mainprice Solicitor for the Customs and Excise.
-
2001 (1) TMI 958 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r which it is enacted. To my mind, the object of the exemption notification is always to give benefit to a particular class of goods and on fulfilment of certain conditions. As in the present case, the benefit is not to a drug as such but it is available only when used as raw material for manufacturing some other medicine. Needless to observe, dismissal of petition would not be construed to mean that petitioner who is claiming the benefit of exemption notification would be denied the benefit even if they satisfy the conditions of the exemption notification observed by this Court. In other words, if the petitioner proves to the satisfaction of authorities that they fulfil the conditions of the exemption notification, the authorities will have to grant them the benefit of notification. 18.. In view of aforesaid discussion, no case is made out to quash the order of Commissioner. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition. It is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 957 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ealer therein transacted with M/s. Wilson and Company who were the agents of the overseas purchaser and therefore, the sale by the dealer was to be treated as the sale to the foreign buyer. The appellants therefore cannot rely upon that decision. As mentioned above, the Supreme Court, in the decisions cited above, had clearly held that when the dealer has nothing to do with the transaction between the exporter and the foreign buyer, the assessee herein cannot claim the benefit under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner is justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, restoring the order of the assessing authority. The appeal is not sustainable and is dismissed. 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 25th day of January, 2001. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 956 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... gs respectively on all aspects of the case, and the assessing officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner have to give independent decision on the arguments before him. 4.. For all other administrative purposes the clarification given under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be binding on the officers subordinate to him by virtue of sub-section (3). 17.. Once the above conclusions are reached the prayer for quashing the impugned notices falls to the ground. If orders have not already been passed the petitioners will have time till February 28, 2001 for filing objections. If objections are filed the first respondent will consider the same in accordance with the principles enunciated in this judgment. The O.Ps. are ordered in the above terms. 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 25th day of January 2001. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 955 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... for 1994-95 to become final by not filing any statutory appeals. Only to wriggle out of the situation to pay the tax and penalty in accordance with assessments for 1994-95 the petitioners have chosen to file the writ petitions now. On the other hand no valid or proper reason for not filing the statutory appeal available to the dealers against the assessment orders in these cases was established. Thus, there is absolutely no case to invoke the writ jurisdiction so as to interfere with the assessment orders which have become final long back. Thus, on the whole there are no merits in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as discussed supra and in such circumstances, the original petitions are dismissed. 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 19th day of January, 2001. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 954 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... al argument. We do not therefore, accept the argument that the decision referred to above can be invoked in a case arising under the TNGST Act. 9.. Secondly, we also find that the order of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority on the question of average sales is perfectly legal and based on good and valid reasons. The fact that the hotelier is situated near the bus stand is an important circumstance to show that the daily sales had been suppressed by the appellant. So far as the section 7-A turnover, the Joint Commissioner has independently exercised his mind and arrived at proper figure. 10.. We do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the Joint Commissioner and the appeal is therefore, dismissed. 11.. 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 January, 2001. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 953 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... stances, we have no hesitation in holding that the delivery and collection charges collected in these cases, have to be added to the price of the goods, though shown separately in the sale invoices, inasmuch as the character of the payment by the customers, namely, the sale price does not change in any way, though the assessee has chosen to bifurcate the price as value of gas and cost of delivery and collection charges. In such circumstances, we find that the conclusion reached by the Joint Commissioner to assess the delivery and collection charges for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79, is quite in order and we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Joint Commissioner. 18.. Accordingly, the tax appeal cases are dismissed. 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 January 2001. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 952 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... f tapioca thippi flour was indicated. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Flour Mills Ltd. reported in 1993 91 STC 408, wherein it was held that wheat and products like, flour, maida and suji derived from wheat , are different commercial commodities. Thus, we find that the conclusion reached by the Joint Commissioner that tapioca thippi flour is a different commercial commodity and therefore, the exemption granted in G.O. P. No. 290/CTRE dated March 11, 1983 is not to be extended for tapioca thippi flour supplied by the assessee, is quite in order and there is no case to interfere with the order of the Joint Commissioner. 8.. Accordingly, the tax appeal case is dismissed. And this tribunal doth further order that order on being produced being punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 4th day of January, 2001. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 951 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he judgment of the learned single Judge . We also quash exhibits P4, P5, P8, P10 and P11 orders of assessment and direct the assessing officer to reconsider and pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law and on the basis of the principles stated in this judgment and in the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1993 88 STC 204 (Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan). It is made clear that any tax deposited on the basis of the assessment order and on the basis of the interim orders Reported in 1997 107 STC 420 (ker) (Hydrotec Engineers India Private Limited v. State of Kerala).-Ed. passed by this Court, need not be refunded to the petitioner now. Fresh assessment orders shall be passed within three months from today. Refund, if any, shall be made after fresh assessment orders are passed. Original petition and the writ appeal are disposed of as above. Order on C.W.P. No. 20739 of 1995 in O.P. No. 14939 of 1995 dismissed. Petition and appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 950 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erved supra, the petitioner was entitled to claim and opt for exemption contained in notification dated October 23, 1981 and hence their case should have been considered on merits with a view to find out whether the petitioner satisfies the requirement of notification dated October 23, 1981 for claiming benefits of the said notification. 18.. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated July 27, 1991 (annexure G1) and order dated April 27, 1992 (annexure 1) are quashed by writ of certiorari. The respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the application of petitioner afresh on merit in the light of observation made in the petition supra. Since the issue relates to exemption of payment of sales tax to small-scale industries it is desirable that the matter be finally decided within three months from the date of this order. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 949 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Officer finds that material to proceed under sub-sections (7) and (8) is available then the authority gets jurisdiction to issue notice to transporter. The writ court will not then interfere in such discretion exercised by Check-post Officer. 13.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ. It is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence of dismissal of the writ, the interim stay granted stands vacated. The respondent No. 2 may proceed with the proceedings initiated pursuant to impugned show cause notices and complete the proceedings one way or other on its merit after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to file reply (if not so far filed) and then pass final order keeping in view the provisions of the Act applicable to the controversy involved in show cause notices and will decide whether a case for imposition of penalty is made out on facts or not. Let this be done within six months from the date of this order. No cost. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 948 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... umption that such evidence is not in existent or not available. Apart from this, we are of the view that any such indulgence would dilate these proceedings in circles for years, and we also need to take into account the time factor and the load both on courts and on authorities if cases are indiscriminately remanded. Undoubtedly, the law does make an exception in those of the instances where very valid and cogent reasons are set out for the default or for those cases where the aggrieved party is able to demonstrate that but for the absence of appearance, the chances of success were almost certain and that it would really be a miscarriage of justice if the party is not afforded a second opportunity. None of those principles apply to the present case and consequently, we are of the view that no second opportunity can be afforded to the present appellants. 5.. Having regard to the aforesaid position, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 947 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty did rely on one other aspect of importance namely the fact that this bifurcation had been accepted in earlier assessments and that the department had not found fault with it but that on the other hand, those orders had assumed finality. Under these circumstances, we see no justification for the conclusions that have been recorded by the revisional authority. 7.. The law on the point that was applicable for the assessment year in question has virtually been settled by the Division Bench judgment which held the field at the material point of time. Under these circumstances, the revisional order, namely, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellate order stands restored with the clarification however that it shall be confined to the period July 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986. The appellant shall be entitled to the consequential benefits. 8.. The appeal succeeds to this extent. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
........
|
