|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 478 Records
-
2001 (4) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the fact that most of the declaration forms as stated are in the possession of the petitioner for production before the authorities, we direct that in case a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs is deposited by the petitioner by the end of May, 2001, realisation of the balance shall be stayed till the disposal of the first appeal. The petitioner shall, without any further notice, appear before the Additional Commissioner with proof of payment on June 5, 2001, so that the appeal can be taken for disposal on merits if it is otherwise free from defects. We make it clear that by directing stay of recovery of part of the payment of the disputed demand, in view of availability of declaration forms, it shall not be construed as if we have expressed any opinion about the acceptability of the declaration forms, stated to be in the possession of the petitioner, and which the petitioner states shall be produced before the appellate authority. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.
-
2001 (4) TMI 897 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r. It is not clear under whose instruction the driver made attempt to cross the check-post without permit though according to the case of the petitioner there was a direction upon the driver to collect the permit from the agent of the petitioner. Thus, even smelling the mala fide attempt of evasion of tax, penalty was reduced to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs from Rs. 5 lakhs probably, for the reasons that the learned Deputy Commissioner had made up his mind to reduce the amount of penalty though the reasons for such remission was neither proper nor justified. 14.. Hence, considering the facts, circumstances and the settled principles of law we are of opinion that the order of imposition of reduced penalty by the Deputy Commissioner needs no interference, and it was also not challenged at the time of hearing of the argument on behalf of the respondents. 15.. In the result, the instant application is dismissed without costs. A. DEB (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 896 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ppression warrants penalty and the reliance placed on 1978 42 STC 121 (Mad.) FB (Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu), so as to grant relief by the Appellate Tribunal, is totally a perverse finding. Thus, we find that there is absolutely no case to delete the penalty, which was fixed at 50 per cent of tax on the actual suppression by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, taking note of all the circumstances of the case. Thus, the penalty deleted by the Appellate Tribunal is also not in order. 15.. In fine, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in A.P. No. 558/82, dated November 6, 1982, is restored. Accordingly, the tax revision case filed by the Revenue is allowed. 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 16th day of April, 2001. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 895 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... industry are to be identified for the purposes of determining the requisite values in the base accounting year 1984-85 because the petitioner himself had not started manufacturing its goods before January 1, 1985. 23.. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this writ petition is allowed, the impugned communication dated April 25, 1998 (annexure 5) is quashed and the respondents are directed to redetermine the relevant values of the percentage of quantum of total sales within the State and sales in the inter-State trade or commerce or despatches outside State for sale outside State of Rajasthan in the accounting period 1984-85 with reference to manufacture of white cement within the State of Rajasthan in terms of the notification annexure 1 for the purpose of computing the increase in eligible turnover for partial exemption under the said notification to which the petitioner is entitled and give effect to it. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 894 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... authorised dealers and stockists such as the petitioner. Furthermore, on a careful study of the entries in question we find that the benefit really attaches itself to the products, viz., those of the items that are manufactured and sold by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission and not by any other third parties but that the benefit of the exemption has been extended to various agents or dealers such as the appellants. In this view of the matter, the interference by the revisional authority would still be unjustified because the appellants even if they do not qualify by virtue of the provisions of the circulars would still be entitled to avail of the benefits by virtue of the provisions of Schedule V of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. It is on this ground, that we are required to set aside the revisional order in question and restore the earlier order. 5.. The appeal accordingly succeeds. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 893 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of Income-tax, Kerala v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi 1967 66 ITR 147. That is the right which the appellant has acquired on account of inactiveness on the part of the concerned department, and that right cannot be taken away from him without giving him opportunity of agitating it and allowing him to get that point adjudicated legally. Inadvertently, it seems that the words which have been objected to by the appellant have come in the order which has been assailed by this appeal. In the interest of justice they need to be quashed as the learned Judge has quashed the order in question and proceedings in question by issuing writ of certiorari. 5.. It is made clear that the assessing authority is at liberty to think of initiating the proceedings against the appellant, if the law permits and if he initiates such proceedings the appellant would be at liberty to agitate such points and the assessing authority would decide the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 892 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... l also has already interpreted the meaning for the words of being heard indicating that there should be opportunity of being heard in person. But the Deputy Commissioner has not given opportunity to the assessee to appear in person and represent his objection, though it was given in writing. As the Deputy Commissioner has not complied with the requirement of section 32(3) of the Act, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside and we remand the same to the same Officer to redo the assessment after giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and thereafter pass the order on merit, complying with the provisions of section 32 of the Act. The transfer petition is allowed as indicated above. 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 23rd day of April, 2001. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 891 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed favourable orders and the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal by exercising the powers under section 39-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 cannot be stated to be without jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal has considered the balance of convenience and has passed orders by exercising its judicial discretion. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to stay the refund subsequent to the issue of refund voucher dated January 22, 2001. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the contentions and accordingly both the original petitions are dismissed. As the main original petitions have been disposed of, the O.M.P. do not survive. 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 30th day of April, 2001. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 890 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity and correctness in the context of relevant entries and the material brought on record. Since in the present case, the learned Commissioner neither examined the matter in the light of relevant entries nor rendered any finding and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 11.. Accordingly petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated June 21, 1994 (annexure P2) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to redecide the issue in the light of observations made supra, and then record a definite finding as to under which entry the goods of the petitioner falls-whether they are exempt or/and if not then under which entry of Schedule they can be taxed. Needless to observe, the Commissioner will pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place their case. Let this be done within six months from the date of this order. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded as per rules. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 889 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... in the writ jurisdiction, an issue involving investigation into controverted questions of fact, cannot be decided. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no case to quash the proceedings of the respondent/assessing authority in Rc. No. A3/6842/96 dated March 5, 2001, as prayed for. 16.. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of in the above manner. In view of the disposal of the original petition as above, the miscellaneous petition therein does not survive. 17.. The time taken during the pendency of this original petition shall be deducted in calculating the period of limitation for filing the revision petition. The original papers, if any filed, shall be returned to the petitioners. 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 3rd day of April, 2001. Petition disposed of accordingly
-
2001 (4) TMI 888 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... mpleted as required under section 2(n) of the Act, even on February 25, 1989 when the goods were delivered to the customer-S.A.R. Plastic Cainds, Madras. Under these circumstances, the assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were perfectly correct in including the sale price in the taxable turnover for the assessment year 1988-89. The Appellate Tribunal has committed the error in deleting the taxable turnover for the reason that the price was not fixed on the date of the delivery of the goods. This view taken by the Tribunal is not acceptable. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that of the assessing authority are restored. The revision is allowed. 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 18th day of April, 2001. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 887 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orm D it would be appropriate that the Tribunal should consider the matter after taking into consideration form D which the applicant may produce before the Tribunal. 4.. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The order dated March 31, 2000 is set aside. The Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench Agra, shall decide the appeal afresh after permitting the applicant to submit form D. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 886 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ments of the Supreme Court in Asif Ahmeed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1989 SC 1899, Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A.P. (1990) 2 SCC 707, State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishnan (1976) 2 SCC 883, Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki (1992) 2 Suppl (1) SCC 548 wherein the apex Court has repeatedly held that the court cannot require the executive Government to exercise the rule-making power in a particular way and if the court were to do so, it will be outstepping its power and would violate the doctrine of separation of powers envisaged in the Constitution. 3.. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner-association from representing to the State Government to consider their claim for extension of the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 742, Revenue (CT. II) Department dated October 20, 1999. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 885 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... purchase of goods for use in the execution of works contract. In the circumstances all the officers are requested to issue C forms to works contractors for purchasing goods inter-State which are intended to be used in the execution of works contracts within the State. 4.. The circular issued by the Government is virtually in conformity with the judgment of the learned single Judge and in view of the said subsequent circular, we are of the opinion that nothing survives in the writ appeals. Even otherwise, we are of the view that no interference is called for since the learned single Judge has discussed elaborately with regard to the question of entitlement of the supply of C forms to the traders and we see no ground to interfere with merits also. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 7331 and 7332 of 1993 are also dismissed. Writ appeals dismissed. Reported as Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer 1992 85 STC 422 (Mad.)
-
2001 (4) TMI 884 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is reason that we have meticulously considered both the facts as also the law on the point virtually threadbare and in our considered view, the law does admit to an exception, which, as we have pointed out can only be justified in very special circumstances. 13.. Having regard to the aforesaid situation, the imposition of the penalty as far as the petitioners are concerned for both the assessment years in question was unjustified. We accordingly quash and set aside the orders imposing the penalty and direct that the sum to be refunded to the petitioners. The department should ascertain as to how much of the amount has been tendered and the petitioners shall be entitled to the refund to that extent. 14.. In the result, the petitioners succeed. The points raised in this petition are answered in favour of the petitioners and against the Revenue. The petitions to stand disposed of on merits. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 883 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... horities on the basis of enquiry, and the documents filed on record rightly concluded that petitioner was not entitled to claim a registration for their alleged new unit which was nothing but a camouflage in the garb of a new unit. This finding could be reached and had to be reached by the Sales Tax Authorities for refusal to grant registration. This finding is not only relevant but binds this Court in its writ jurisdiction-it being a finding based on facts. 11.. Once the aforesaid factual finding is reached and upheld all other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which are mostly based on abstract question of law looses its significance. Even otherwise, the submissions made did not have any substance. 12.. As a consequence of aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in this writ which deserves to be dismissed thereby upholding of the impugned orders. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioners, be refunded as per rules. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 882 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not static, liberal, not verbal of course not substituting their economic and social beliefs vis-a-vis judgment of legislative bodies. The rule according to me is clear, and not ambiguous and as pointed out by the petitioners, in situations when Central sales tax was paid, and tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is assured, there was a benevolent approach by exempting them from a levy under the entry tax as well. This has come in form of S.R.O. No. 263 of 1998. To deny the petitioners the protection and privilege of the S.R.O. may not be proper or valid. 21.. It will therefore be appropriate that the items not coming under the purview of this judgment in respect the demand put up as against the petitioner in O.P. No. 7687 of 2001 alone be delinked. The rest of the goods, viz., ingot moulds, do not attract entry tax. The original petitions are allowed to the extent indicated. Appropriate follow up orders are to be passed in that case. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 881 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of the next higher authority. 5.. Further more, the impugned proceeding is also vitiated on account of the first respondent acting under dictation. Neither the second respondent nor the third respondent is the donee of the power conferred by the statute in sub-section (6) of section 29 of the Act. The power conferred upon the first respondent who is the donee of the power under sub-section (6) should be exercised independently, and he cannot surrender his discretion to the dictates of either the second respondent or the third respondent. 6.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the impugned proceeding. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000 payable to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. 7.. The rule nisi has been made absolute as above witness the honourable Mr. S.B. Sinha, the Chief Justice on Friday the twentieth day of April, Two thousand one. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 880 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the relevant exemption notification and the intention of the State Government in granting exemption are to be taken into account while interpreting the words used in the G.Os., in question. Here there is no ambiguity in the expressions used in the G.O. Further, the intention of the State Government is also clear that only gold bullion and specie is entitled for concessional rate of tax. 15.. Further, it is clear from the records that immediately after issuing the G.O. Ms. No. 1092, the Jewellers association sought for a clarification from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and accordingly he has also issued a clarification on March 22, 1995 clarifying that the concessional rates of tax is applicable only to gold bullion, specie and jewellery. Therefore, the petitioner is aware of the liability to tax at the normal rate in respect of silver bullion. 16.. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 879 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erred under rule 3(4) of the Sales Tax Rules, powers were also delegated to other officers under annexure 8. From this, it is clear that on the date of issue of notice and notification under annexures 1 and 7 the petitioner was aware of the delegation of power as done by the Government in the notification and also its legal position. Whether the authority has passed the order either in original capacity or in exercise of delegated powers as per rule 47 an appeal lies to the Commissioner. The petitioner though aware of the above legal position has filed the present writ petition with a view to drag on the proceedings on the one hand and to postpone the payment of tax for a considerable period. If stay has been granted in the similar circumstances that cannot be a ground to entertain this application and grant stay. In our view, the present writ petition is misconceived. The writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. L. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Writ petition dismissed.
........
|
