|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 555 Records
-
2001 (9) TMI 1107
... ...
... ... ..... neficial concession granted to the traders by Act 22 of 1995. 6.. At the time of hearing Sri S.R. Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India, told us that the tax collected at the enhanced rate for the period from April 1, 1995 to May 22, 1995 was already transmitted to the Commercial Tax Department and this statement made by the learned counsel is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes. 7.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we declare that the collection of tax for the period from April 1, 1995 to May 22, 1995 at the enhanced rate on wheat in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 252, dated May 19, 1995 is illegal and unauthorised. Consequently, a direction shall issue to the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the excess tax collected from the petitioner or to adjust the same towards any existing liability, if any. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... ld better and will contribute to high selling cost of the seeds. Moreover, the production and marketing of the certified and truthfully labelled seeds is an elaborate process spanning 4 to 6 months involving various steps with Seed Certifying Agency and the said procedures. There is no difficulty for the appellants to produce any evidence involving these steps to evaluate such evidence and to consider the claim of the appellant. But, the appellant did not produce any evidence even at this stage. 7.. It is not the contention of Sri P. Venugopal that any evidence was led before the authorities or before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), who is the revisional authority or before the Tribunal to establish the genuineness and veracity of the labelling. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the opinion recorded by the learned Tribunal. 8.. We do not find any merit in the tax revision case and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1105
... ...
... ... ..... efore the Secretary under section 17-A, the same shall be duly considered by the Secretary and appropriate orders in accordance with the law shall be passed by him not later than two months from date of submitting such returns and the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Reasoned speaking order shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter by registered post with A/D. 29.. In the result, writ petition is dismissed in so far as prayers (a), (b) and (c). 30. As regards prayer (d), writ petition is disposed of with the observations, liberty to the petitioner and directions as aforestated. 31.. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of, in the facts and circumstances of the case without order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... ority acts in performance of its duties, functions and powers, any action taken by it must be traceable to an authority granted by the statute and if such action cannot be traced to an authority granted by the statute, such action would be deemed as ultra vires of the statute. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes was not in a position to bring to our notice any provision of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which grants power to the third respondent to issue the impugned circular directing his subordinate officers to insist for payment of advance tax at the checkposts. Therefore, the impugned circular should be held to be a nullity in the eye of law. In taking this opinion, we are also fortified by the judgment in Ramanadh Poultry Farms v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer 1999 114 STC 140 (AP). 6.. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned circular is quashed. No costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... 2 85 STC 432 (1992) 2 SCC 683 as also the earlier law of this Court and the various other High Courts. The orders of assessment could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Free Wheels (India) Ltd. 1997 107 STC 332 that simply because the law has been changed or earlier law laid down has been reversed, that would entitle the revisional authority to reopen the earlier assessments. The learned single Judge has not gone into this aspect of the matter. 15.. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge Victor Cane Industries v. Commissioner of Taxes 1998 109 STC 72 (Gauhati) . Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Taxes, Tinsukia dated July 31, 1992 shall stand quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1102
... ...
... ... ..... s errors of this nature which leads to the deprivation of a right in the assessee to seek renewal in time by misleading him about the need for such renewal, must at the minimum put him on notice about the correct state of the law and give him an opportunity to seek renewal. The abrupt cancellation as done in this case was wholly impermissible. 11.. We make it clear that the relief we are granting to the assessee herein is purely on account of the misleading form, which the Revenue chose to use to grant the certificate of registration to the assessee. 12.. In the result, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The order of cancellation cancelling the certificate of registration of the assessee is also set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Revenue to issue a show cause notice to the assessee and give him time to seek renewal and thereafter make an appropriate order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The connected W.M.P. is closed. Petition ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1101
... ...
... ... ..... es were clearly goods which were used in or for the manufacture of the fluids. 11.. The assessee by reason of this demand for purchase tax has not suffered any additional burden as any other manufacturer of I.V. fluids who sells the fluids in bottles by purchasing bottles from another registered dealer on which sales tax was paid, would also still be required to include the turnover of those bottles in the turnover of the I.V. fluids. Section 7-A, as submitted by the learned counsel, was intended to plug loss of revenue. We were initially troubled when the facts of the case were presented before us as though the assessee was being burdened with tax twice over. A closure examination of the case, however, demonstrated that no such additional burden is cast on the assessee. On the other hand, not levying the tax would only amount to the assessee gaining an advantage, which the law did not intend to provide. 12.. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1100
... ...
... ... ..... justification in directing the petitioner to furnish security, which is intended for the purpose of prompt payment of taxes. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the liability did not cease but the same only postponed. Even accepting that, there is no immediate liability as far as the petitioner is concerned to pay the taxes during the year in which the impugned order was passed. When there is no immediate liability to pay the sales tax, there is absolutely no justification for the registering authority in passing the impugned order seeking the petitioner to furnish additional security deposit. In any case the said direction of the registering authority is contrary to the circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which are binding on him. Even on that ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 10.. Under the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1099
... ...
... ... ..... 90 was published on February 11, 1991 and came into force on January 30, 1990. Petitioner has chosen to challenge the same in the present application filed on March 30, 2000. This rule had held the field for a decade and the rights and liabilities of parties I presume, must have been adjudicated in the meantime. Interference by this Court at this stage would unsettle many settled issues. 20.. Thus, the relevant provision of clause 3 of the Rules and explanation appended thereto in no way takes away the benefit of scheme given in the Industrial Policy and as such explanatory note cannot be declared ultra vires of the Policy decision of 1989. The decision taken by the State Level Committee on the basis of the provision contained in clause 3 of the Rules thus, cannot be faulted on the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner. 21.. In the result, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.-I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1098
... ...
... ... ..... e must go to the Consolidated Fund and not to any other including the social security fund. The scheme of the impugned Act is contrary to the provisions of article 266 as also the other provisions of the Constitution. It is, thus, unsustainable. Since the cess is an integral part of the fund, the two cannot be divorced from each other. Thus, the impugned Act is declared unconstitutional. (iii) The common problem in the country is deficit . But let us remember the old saying- the less a Government costs, the more it is worth . A rigid economy and free spending are self-contradictory concepts. To meet the resource crunch, we have to reduce the expenses. Not to levy tax on everything. (iv) In the circumstances of these cases, the plea of equitable estoppel based on exemption as raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be sustained and is, thus, rejected. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1097
... ...
... ... ..... taxable in the place where the contract is executed. on our direction, learned counsel for petitioner has produced before us contract entered into between it and I.A.P.L. which indicates that contract has been executed at Madras Therefore, even if subsequent sale is to be taxable, it is an inter-State sale and the subsequent sale having been a transit sale is covered under section 3(b) of the C.S.T. Act and assessment under the O.S.T. Act of turnover of sale of the aforesaid goods is without jurisdiction. 7.. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of assessment made under section 12(4) of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, cannot be supported in law and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It is needless to say that it is open for the department to initiate a proceeding, if so advised, under the Central Sales Tax Act in accordance with law to find out whether subsequent transit sale is exempt under section 6(2). CH. P.K. MISRA, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... effect from the respective date on which the period of six months from the date of the order made by the learned Tribunal and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner expired. 4.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition with no order as to cost. A direction shall issue to the respondent to pay to the petitioner-assessee simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the refund due and paid to the petitioner from the dates immediately following the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the order of the learned Tribunal for the assessment year 1981-82 and from the date of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the honourable Mr. S.B. Sinha, Chief Justice on this Tuesday fourth day of September, two thousand one. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1095
... ...
... ... ..... apex Court reiterated the principle stated by it in Anand Commercial Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad 1997 107 STC 586 AIR 1998 SC 113. 9.. In that view of the matter and for the foregoing reasons, we declare that entry 60(a) of the First Schedule to the APGST Act in so far as it imposes higher rate of tax on the atta, ravva and maida obtained from wheat, which has not suffered tax under the APGST Act, while imposing a lower rate of tax on the same products, which has not suffered tax under entry 60(b), as illegal, ultra vires and violative of articles 14 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. Consequently a direction shall issue to the respondents to levy tax on the sales of atta, ravva and maida manufactured by the petitioner, as required under clause (b) of entry 60 of the First Schedule to the Act by passing reassessment orders for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1094
... ...
... ... ..... rned being the market value of 164.264 metres of aluminium rods given as material loan to M/s. Alind (Kundara) during the year 1981-82. A security deposit of Rs. 34,72,845.14 was collected by the petitioner towards the loan as evidenced by the book entries and continued effort for getting back the materials supplied by way of loan failed. Hence, security collected was forfeited in the year 1989-90. 3.. The assessing officer took the stand that the loan when adjusted during the year 1989-90 must be treated as deemed sale during that year. He, therefore, estimated the sale value of the goods not returned at Rs. 71,50,740 based on the market value of the goods prevalent during 1989-90. The assessment was completed accordingly. 4.. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no element of sale in the loan arrangement. The department has admitted the genuineness of the loan. The department also treated the transaction as loan during the assessment years 1981-82 to 1988-89.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1093
... ...
... ... ..... f article 366 of the Constitution. Perhaps, the Parliament itself anticipating such a contingency and to cover such contingency has clarified the position by using the words whether or not for a specified period . Therefore, it is totally immaterial whether parting of goods is for a specified period or not in deciding the question whether that goods fall within sub-clause (d) of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution or not. In other words, even assuming that the petitioners/dealers parted with the goods only for a specified period, that fact itself would not take away the goods from the purview of sub-clause (d). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to demonstrate any constitutional flaw, which would render the impugned provisions unconstitutional. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1092
... ...
... ... ..... o this, the apex Court meeting almost similar contention in Premier Breweries s case 1998 108 STC 598 and the provisions of section 5(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act which is in pari materia with the provisions of section 6-C of the APGST Act and after referring to the two cases in Raj Sheel s case 1989 74 STC 379 (SC) and Vasavadatta Cement s case 1996 101 STC 168 (SC) opined that the point of tax and rate of tax on containers and packing material shall be the same as that of goods sold even where containers or packing materials are sold separately. In the light of this opinion of the apex Court, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to direct the assessing authority to determine the ingredients of the contract of sale or agreement for sale entered by the petitioner-dealer relating to the container and also the intention of the parties cannot be acceded to. 5.. In the result, we dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1091
... ...
... ... ..... rom the dealers and furnish the same before the assess- ment order was made. When the entitlement of the petitioner to file application under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with sections 8(4) and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is accepted on the merits of the nature of transaction, in order to render substantial justice, the petitioner is entitled to the direction as sought for to the respondent to accept the C form declarations which were filed admittedly, belatedly. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to accept the C form declarations on the ground of delay cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the respondent is directed to accept the C form declarations of the petitioner pertaining to the inter-State sale of leather meal for the assessment year 1994-95. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1090
... ...
... ... ..... nataka Tax on Entry of Goods Rules, 1979, in regard to the value of HSD which is taken out of the last local area in the State of Karnataka (that is HSD remaining unused in the tanks of the locomotives when they leave the borders of the last local area within the State) while calculating the entry tax payable on the HSD brought into a local area. (c) As a consequence, the order of assessment dated March 26, 1999 passed by the second respondent and the consequential endorsement dated June 4, 1999 are quashed. The second respondent is directed to permit the second petitioner to file necessary returns in form No. (5) and then redo the assessment in the light of the observations made above. (d) To expedite the matter, the second petitioner shall appear before the second respondent without further notice on November 7, 2001 at 11.00 a.m. with concerned records and take further orders from the second respondent. (e) Parties to bear their respective costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1089
... ...
... ... ..... d foreign customers. The Commissioner has pointed out that during the same period only 4,28,526 kgs. of cashew-nut kernels were exported from Rajahmundry unit of the petitioner-firm. No acceptable substantive evidence was placed before the Commissioner to establish that the entire purchases made at Rajahmundry between April 24, 1979 and July 16, 1979 were exported in pursuance of pre-existing contracts. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are essentially on questions of facts. No material is placed before us to satisfy ourselves that the factual findings recorded by the Commissioner are perverse or based on no evidence. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 1996 100 STC 571 the judgment of this Court in Singh Trading Company case 1979 44 STC 1 is no longer good law. 5.. The special appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1088
... ...
... ... ..... n State of West Bengal v. Union of India reported in AIR 1963 SC 1241 that a statute, as passed by Parliament, is the expression of the collective intention of the Legislature as a whole, and any statement made by an individual, albeit a Minister, of the intention and objects of the Act cannot be used to cut down the generality of the words used in the statute. 15.. Thus, on plain reading of the notification dated March 7, 1994 with the definition of the word tax in section 2(r), the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the word tax includes sales tax as well as the purchase tax and charging of tax from the purchaser by the seller on submission of ST 17 forms is contrary to the exemption notification referred to above. Thus, the view taken by the Tax Tribunal is perfectly legal and justified and does not call for any interference. 16.. Consequently, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
