|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 530 Records
-
2002 (4) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evening as his writer was not present. When the accused started to go towards toilet, the complainant followed him and he gave something from his pocket to the accused who took the same and put that in his pocket. From this evidence, it cannot be inferred that accused demanded any amount from the complainant or that he had obtained the same. It is apparent that the trial court and the High Court misread the evidence of PW2 and held that there was demand by the accused and the amount was paid to him by the complainant. It was unreasonable to hold that accused demanded money from the complainant. Complainant denied the said story and PW2 had not stated so. In this view of the matter, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the order passed by the Special Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) is set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the same.
-
2002 (4) TMI 940 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... gainst the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Sprint R.P.G. India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - I, Delhi (116 E.L.T. 6). We see no reason to take any contrary view, as suggested on behalf of the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 939 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the appellant, it was held that the mere fact that no overt act was attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly, was not sufficient to disprove the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the question regarding the applicability of the aforesaid section depends upon facts of each case. In the instant case the prosecution has established the existence of the common object of the unlawful assembly for attracting the applicability of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the mere fact that no overt act has been attributed to each of the accused persons is not sufficient to hold that charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code has not proved against them. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that the appellants have rightly been convicted for the commission of various offences by the trial court, as confirmed by the appellate court and sentenced accordingly. There is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 938 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ties would appear before that Court on 14.12.2004 to take further orders regarding the posting of the suit. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that appearance would be entered on behalf of the Corporation and the Government of Orissa. The trial court will direct the plaintiff to take out summons to TISCO and also to the Corporation and the Government of Orissa if they do not appear before it on 14.12.2004. Since defendant No.1 was already on the party array and had appeared in the suit, no fresh notice to it will be necessary. We have been assured on behalf of the Government of Orissa that it will appear in the trial court on the date fixed. After the appearance of the Corporation and the Government of Orissa or after service of summons on them and TISCO, the trial court will proceed with the suit and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and in the light of the directions as above. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
-
2002 (4) TMI 937 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e. There may be possibility of a different incident having taken place resulting in drowning of the deceased. It is not a circumstance which may lead to irresistible inference that the appellant and none else was responsible for drowning of the deceased. The drowning does not appear to be direct or indirect result of the incident of robbery in which the deceased was deprived of his valuables. It cannot be said that it is a circumstance which is wholly incompatible with the innocence of the appellant so far charge of murder is concerned. We therefore feel that it would not be possible to draw any inference that the murder was also committed by the appellant. In view of the discussion held above we partly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC but dismiss the appeal in so far it relates to conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court under Section 392 IPC.
-
2002 (4) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is in fact any conflict between the two sets of judgments?
Held that:- The judgment of the 2-Judge Bench of this Court dated 23.3.1995 as modified by the subsequent order dated 26.7.1996 by the same Bench does not lay down the correct law, being in conflict with the larger Bench judgment. If that be so, the above writ petitions, from which this reference has arisen, will have to be decided de hors the law laid down by those two judgments of the Bench of two learned Judges. Therefore, having decided the issue that has arisen for our consideration, we think it just that these writ petitions should now be placed before a Bench of three learned Judges for final disposal.
-
2002 (4) TMI 935 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re being a fresh report by an agency which cannot be regarded as extraneous inasmuch as it is the Industries Department which provides necessary inputs on the basis of which the Commercial Taxes Department has to take the decision, I am of the view that the matter deserves fresh consideration. 16.. The petitioner may file representation before the concerned authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Bhagalpur, for the purpose. He (the Joint Commissioner) is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter keeping in view the observations made in this order. Meanwhile, the orders of the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), dated August 29, 2000 and the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeal), dated January 15, 2002 are set aside. 17.. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the observations and directions mentioned above. No order as to costs. 18.. TARKESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J. - I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 934 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nch decision in Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal 2003 132 STC 489 (2000) 28 RTJS 83. 3.. In both the cases, it has been held that when goods are sold contained in packing material to which the incentive scheme applies and the assessee is entitled to claim exemption, the packing material cannot be brought to tax by invoking the last proviso to section 5(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as the property in packing material passes only incidentally and not principally, and the sale of the principal commodity cannot be split into two. 4.. In view of the aforesaid two judgments, this revision petition by the Revenue, requiring this court to hold otherwise, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 933 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be required under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963. In the present case the unit is situated outside original municipal limits and within controlled area. The nature of land, therefore, is agricultural and permission in form of CLU for changing the use to non-agricultural is mandatory. 7.. In our view the reasons recorded by HLSC are germane to the provisions of rule 28-A(5) read with form ST-70 makes the production of CLU certificate mandatory condition for grant of eligibility certificate. The petitioner has not controverted the fact that it has set up the industry in 1996 and the municipal limits were extended in notification dated December 31, 1997. Therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid its responsibility to produce CLU certificate from the competent authority and we do not find any reason to upset the order of HLSC. 8.. No other point has been argued. 9.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 932 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deduction of tax. In the circumstances the original petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Sales Tax Officer (Works Contract) for appropriate certificates under rule 22A(3). There will be a further direction to the said officer to complete the petitioners assessments without any delay to enable the petitioners to settle their accounts with B.S.N.L. If there is grievance in the assessments made, petitioner is free to file appeal. The Sales Tax Officer (Works Contract) will, within three weeks from the date of production of accounts and certificates from the B.S.N.L. by the petitioners, determine the appropriate tax liability and modify form 16 issued, so that B.S.N.L. can release payment of the petitioners after deducting and remitting actual tax due in respect of the work. All issues will be considered in assessments and in appeal before statutory authority. Order on C.M.P. No. 62564 of 2002 in O.P. No. 38164 of 2001 dismissed. Petition disposed of.
-
2002 (4) TMI 931 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is no question of breach of the provisions of the rule 45(b) of the Rules. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner has not filed the return or the amount has not been paid on the basis of said return. Thus, the respondent-authority was not justified in withholding the form XXVIIIB. 7.. Accordingly, the impugned orders as contained in annexures 5 and 5A to the writ application are quashed and the authorities concerned are directed to issue form XXVIIIB at once to the petitioner. However, we would like to make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the purchase and sale of the sockets or not, it is for the sales tax authorities to decide it in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and on such determination being made take further steps in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (4) TMI 930 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t there is a sale of the commodity sought to be taxed in accordance with the well-established norms and one of such norms in all circumstances is the transfer of property in goods whether the principal or packing material must be for a consideration referred to such commodity alone. The intendment of the parties to transfer the property in packing material independent of goods packed therein for a price must be shown to exist and if it is transferred under compulsion without there being a voluntary agreement, it must be shown that the transfer is of packing material independent of it. 6.. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the revision must fail as in the present case a tax has been levied only by invoking last proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 without establishing the fact necessary for establishing the sale of packing material independent of the sale of the principal commodity. Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 929 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere is a sale of the commodity sought to be taxed in accordance with the well-established norms and one of such norms in all circumstances is the transfer of property in goods whether the principal or packing material must be for a consideration referred to such commodity alone. The intendment of the parties to transfer the property in packing material independent of goods packed therein for a price must be shown to exist and if it is transferred under compulsion without there being a voluntary agreement, it must be shown that the transfer is of packing material independent of it. 6.. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the revision must fail as in the present case a tax has been levied only by invoking the last proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 without establishing the fact necessary for establishing the sale of packing material independent of the sale of the principal commodity. Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 928 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f little assistance except the decision in J.K. Synthetics 1994 94 STC 422 (SC), as discussed above which throws sufficient light on the changes that have been brought about by substitution of section 11-B with effect from April 7, 1979 vis-a-vis provision which was in force during the period for which dispute was before the court. It clearly pointed out the shift in the basis of levy of interest from failure to pay tax due as per assessee under section 7(2) and (2-A) to non-payment of tax due as per assessment. It gave effect to principle of ex-hypothesi determination of tax on occurrence of taxing event. 59.. As a result, these revisions succeed and are allowed. The respondent-dealer shall be liable to pay interest on the quantified amount of tax on the basis of return with effect from the date it was deemed to have become payable but was not so paid. Accordingly, the order passed by the assessing officer is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 927 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s but the word incomplete return. From the order of the assessment dated March 30, 1992, we find that the assessing authority determined the turnover only based on the accounts. Even if we accept that the statement filed at the time of final assessment as revised returns , we are unable to accept it as a complete return since there was no proof of payment of tax due accompanied the return. 19.. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the original assessment dated March 30, 1992 made by the assessing authority squarely falls under section 12(4)(iii) of the Act as it stood then and the order of the Joint Commissioner (SMR) in confirming the penalty does not warrant any interference. 20.. The tax case (appeal) is accordingly 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 April, 2002. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 926 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... issued at the instance of the Commissioner, a higher authority. It is accepted at the bar in the said proceedings that the reassessment proceedings are complete. We may notice that only in a case where disputed questions are required to be determined, the matter may be referred to the Commissioner who may determine such question within such period as may be prescribed in relation to the matter specified therein and order of assessment even does not come within the purview of section 49 of the said Act. 18.. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we have no other option but to hold that the said circular is ultra vires the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and consequently, the impugned notice dated April 24, 2001 which was issued pursuant to or in furtherance thereof, was issued without any authority, is liable to be set aside. It is directed accordingly. 19.. The writ petition is allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 925 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar including the territories now comprising the State of Jharkhand, with a view to avail of different kinds of benefits/incentives including the one by way of sales tax exemption, the claim of the respondent can also be enforced on principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The State of Jharkhand having come into existence with the consent of the erstwhile State, on general principles also the State of Jharkhand cannot deprive the respondent of its rights except in accordance with law as per section 84 of the Re-organisation Act. The legislative intent of the existing laws remaining in force until expiration of two years from the appointed day, under section 85 of the Re-organisation Act, has also to be kept in mind. 15.. In the above premises, I do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge upholding the claim of the respondent. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. T.P. SINGH, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 924 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... overnment Orders granting the subsidy and they have no vested right to claim exemption. (2) No inducement was made in the Government Orders to establish the units. (3) The respondents have not acted on the basis of the Government Orders for establishing the units. (4) The grant of subsidy is a concession and the Government has got good reasons for modifying the scheme in public interest. (5) No prejudice is caused to the respondents since the scheme was intended to make the units viable and the modified scheme provides for safeguards to that extent. (6) The order granting subsidy can be withdrawn in public interest. The Government has exercised their right to modify the scheme in the interest of public revenue. 45.. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the impugned Government Order is valid and ought not to have been interfered with. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and the orders of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 923 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t did not come to close quarters with the judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or even alludes to the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge. 5.. I find that observations made in the above cases are protecting the cause of the applicant/revisionist because without stating as to how the order of the first appellate authority went wrong and in the absence of proof or reasons recorded the presumption that the applicant has been involved in the sales of imported goods does not seem to be justified, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and matter is remanded to the Tribunal to pass afresh order within eight weeks expeditiously in view of the observations made above. The revision is allowed and questions are answered accordingly. A copy of this order shall be produced by the revisionist before the Tribunal. 6.. A certified copy of this order may be furnished to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (4) TMI 922 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evise the confiscation order, we hold that the consequential order dated March 9, 2002 (corrigendum) is without authority and cannot be sustained. 7.. In the light of our discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the order passed on March 8, 2002 confiscating the seized articles cannot be sustained and therefore, we set aside the same. The resultant effect is that the respondents are bound to consider the objections that would be filed by the petitioner and then decide as to whether confiscation order could be passed or not. In this background, we grant two weeks time to the petitioner from today to place such objections before the appropriate authority pursuant to the notice dated March 8, 2002, on which basis the appropriate authority shall enquire into the matter as to whether there are any grounds for confiscation of the seized articles and pass appropriate orders according to law. 8.. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
