|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 778
... ...
... ... ..... der separate statute. It is not as if Surcharge Act is not applicable to dealers paying tax at compounded rate under section 7. Surcharge under that Act was a levy on the sales tax payable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and dealers paying tax at compounded rate also would have been liable to pay surcharge on the compounding fee but for its repeal. However, surcharge cannot be reckoned for the purpose of computation of tax at compounded rate under section 7(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the circumstances, I feel exhibit P2 order is in clear violation of section 7(1)(a) of the Act. The original petition is therefore allowed directing the assessing officer to delete surcharge in the computation of tax for 1999-2000 and demand compounding fee from the petitioner at the rate of 120 per cent of the tax paid for the year 1999-2000 after excluding the surcharge component. Order on C.M.P. No. 20287 of 2002 in O.P. No. 11716 of 2002(T) dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 777
... ...
... ... ..... and sought time to file reply on behalf of the respondent. He was allowed three weeks time but no reply has been filed so far. Not only this, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent today. 3.. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition. It is more than clear that the petitioner is an exempted unit and the period of exemption was not yet over nor had the amount been exhausted and, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the authorities below were not justified in requiring the petitioner to deposit the assessed amount before entertaining its appeals. This fact is apparent from the record but unfortunately none of the authorities below took note of it. We, therefore, allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders and direct the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, to entertain the appeals filed by the petitioner without deposit of any tax and decide the same in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 776
... ...
... ... ..... gard to job work was accepted by the learned Tribunal, therefore, in view of the Indian Herbs Research and Supply Co., Saharanpur case STI 1999 All. 55 merely non-maintenance of manufacturing accounts as required under section 12 of the Act does not automatically mean that turnover of the applicant could be enhanced, more so, when at the time of survey entire books of account and stock register were made available. From this point of view the enhancing of taxable turnover without any rhyme or reason as indicated by the order dated May 29/30, 2000 is not legally sustainable. From this point of view this order is set aside and the turnover fixed/disclosed by the applicant/revisionist should have been accepted. In the light of above observations the Tribunal shall pass appropriate order under section 11(8) of the Act expeditiously within four months. 7. In the light of the above observations the revision is allowed and the questions are dealt with accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 775
... ...
... ... ..... gned, found the following facts The assessee has effected sales of Rs. 48,01,562.50 through commission agent Senthil Trading Company, Kozhikode . The agent collected tax on the turnover and paid it to the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Calicut. A certificate to that effect was issued by the agent which is available in the assessment records. The agent collected tax and paid for and on behalf of the assessee. The sale was taxable as first sale but exempted from the turnover of the assessee as tax has been collected and paid by the agent. The Tribunal held that the agent was dealing only for and on behalf of the principal. Therefore tax cannot be levied on such turnover. The concluded fact in this case is that the agent of the assessee sold goods on behalf of the principal. There was no sale by the assessee to the agent. 5.. In the above view of the matter, we agree with the Tribunal and uphold the order passed by the Tribunal. T.R.C. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 774
... ...
... ... ..... ommissioner of Trade Tax) it was held that while considering the waiver cum stay application the revenue authorities or the Tribunal is required to look into the prima facie merits of the case as well as financial condition of the petitioner. 10.. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I find that section 9(3-A) is identical to section 10(8) of the Act and observations made in the above referred cases are applicable in the present case for extending time for depositing of security. From this point of view the order dated September 27, 2002 is hereby set aside and assessing authority is hereby directed to accept the security without treating the petitioner as defaulter and Second Appeals Nos. 625 of 2001, 626 of 2001 (1997-98 U.P. and Central) in respect of the petition is directed to be decided expeditiously preferably within six months from today with the co-operation of the parties. The writ petition is allowed in view of the above observations. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 773
... ...
... ... ..... notice, hearing the party and deciding the matter thereafter. 6.. In the circumstances, the petitioners will approach the check-post officer, Walayar, with a copy of this judgment, and the check-post officer will issue notice to the petitioners and after hearing the petitioners adjudicate the matter. Until adjudication is made by the check-post officer the BSNL will retain 4 per cent of the bill amount payable to the petitioners towards entry tax, and the petitioners will be paid only the net amount. In respect of future transactions, the petitioners will be permitted to transport the goods on the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee from branches of nationalised banks in Kerala. On adjudication if it is found that the petitioners are not liable to pay entry tax, then the amounts collected will be refunded to the petitioners without delay. O.Ps. are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 11776 and 21029 of 2002 in O.P. No. 6676 of 2002 dismissed. Petitions disposed of.
-
2002 (7) TMI 772
... ...
... ... ..... s contentions not only on the sustainability of the proceeding initiated by the Commissioner but also on the merits of the dispute that has arisen now. What we have dealt with here is only the argument that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu, a revision under rule 80 of the Rules against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed in exercise of power under rule 80 of the Rules. Since we have held that there is no fetter on the exercise of power by the Commissioner under rule 80 of the Rules read with section 23(4)(a) of the Act, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no jurisdictional infirmity in the notice, annexure 8, issued to the assessee. In that view, we reject the challenge of the assessee and dismiss this writ petition, but without prejudice to the right of the assessee to put forward all other contentions available to it under the Act, in answer to the notice issued by the Commissioner himself. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 771
... ...
... ... ..... re the petitioner likes to claim and enjoy the benefit of purchase of consumable items at concessional rate even after using 40 per cent of the item in the production of non-taxable goods (exercise books). This he cannot do under the law. So the petitioner is not entitled under the law to get declaration form issued in its favour for that portion of his purchase of the same as were utilised for manufacture and sale of non-taxable item in 1996-97 and 1997-98. We have gone through the impugned order dated July 10, 2000 of respondent No. 1 and we find that on cogent reason, the petitioner s application praying for issue of declaration form in form 12 for the balance amount of chemical and dyes was rejected and we find no illegality in the order. 10.. The issue is thus decided against the petitioner. The application as such is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Parties do bear their respective costs. 11.. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 770
... ...
... ... ..... shortfall in the payment of sales tax they should not be precluded from agitating upon the vires of rule 8(4)(c). However, this does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioners also possess necessary legal character to further claim that ST-1 forms shall be issued to their purchasing dealers, where efforts of the latter are either not forthcoming, or have proved to be sterile. 28.. The petitions are without merit and are dismissed. The petitioners have filed applications for the issuance of directions to the respondents for supply of sales tax exemption forms. They have also filed applications for temporary injunction. Since we have found no merit in the writ petitions themselves all these applications along with other pending applications are also dismissed. However, in view of the understandable misconstruction by the petitioners of the decision of Shri Krishna s case (C.W.P. No. 3304 of 1997) 2003 131 STC 321 (Delhi) we desist from awarding costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 769
... ...
... ... ..... on to furnish declaration forms. There may have been a possible violation of the rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(g), if there is a State mandate to the effect that goods have to be purchased only from a particular registered dealer. Persons in the trade would be well advised to enter into transactions only with those persons who have not committed any default in the performance of any of their duties and obligations under the Act. This can be ensured by insistence on simultaneous and contemporaneous supply of the requisite forms. 9.. The petitions are dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. C.M. No. 12586 of 2001. The court had granted temporary relief to the petitioners by permitting them to deposit 50 per cent of the demand raised on them. Since we find no merit in the petitions, these interim orders have to be recalled. In view of the judgment in C.W.P. No. 7340 of 2001 the application is without merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 768
... ...
... ... ..... Special Tribunal and the appeal was rejected only on the ground that the original assessment order had become final, as the petitioner did not prefer the second appeal. The reason adduced by the petitioner in not preferring the second appeal merits acceptance. Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Taxation Special Tribunal. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of 15 days from today and if such an appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered on merits without reference to the question of limitation and disposed of in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. We make it clear that the respondents are entitled to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of tax on the basis of original assessment order, if no appeal is filed by the petitioner as directed above. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 33331 of 2002 is closed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... for determining the date from which the exemption can be availed of in accordance with the Notification No. 780 dated March 31, 1995. 11.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the judgment dated May 24, 2002 passed by this Court in Revision No. 38 of 2002 (Paswara Petrochem Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow) wherein the eligibility certificate has been allowed for the expansion made within a year. Reported in 2003 132 STC 159. 12.. In view of the above observations, the order dated June 19, 2002 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is set aside and the order dated April 23, 2002 passed by Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (annexure 6) is stayed and the Appeal No. 50 of 2002 is allowed to be proceeded with and the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties on merits after considering the submissions made by the parties. 13.. The writ petition is allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 766
... ...
... ... ..... is no bar for levying surcharge and Legislature is competent to levy the said surcharge. We are, therefore, of the view that the said provision is not ultra vires of the provisions of the said Act or the Constitution of India. 6.. Having come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 15-1A are not ultra vires then second question which is required to be considered is as to whether levy of surcharge has been properly calculated or not. We have perused the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer in both the cases as also by the Sales Tax Tribunal in W.P. No. 2565 of 1987. They have considered at length and considered the levy of sales tax at length and have held that sales tax is properly levied. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of facts given even by both the authorities. 7.. The writ petitions are, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... hese reasons, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000 on the third respondent, which shall be recovered from him. We direct this amount of Rs. 15,000 shall be recovered from the salary of the third respondent in three equal monthly instalments, i.e., Rs. 5,000 for each month from the monthly salary of February, March, and April, 2002 payable in the months of March, April and May, 2002 respectively and the same shall be paid to the petitioner by way of demand drafts. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of A.P. shall issue necessary instructions to all concerned to effect the deduction from the salary of the third respondent as indicated above and report compliance of the order to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The Registry shall issue a copy of this order to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and also Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... ive operation. The provision had to be read subject to the rule that in the absence of an express provision or clear implication, the Legislature did not intend to attribute the amending provision a greater retrospectivity than was expressly mentioned nor to authorise the Income-tax Officer to commence the proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided, became barred. Notice therefore was held to be bad. 5.. In the present case, the right of the department to proceed against the petitioner under section 19 had been barred, as on April 1, 1998. Therefore, action could not be taken under section 19. Consequently exhibit P6 is to be declared as null and void, as was without jurisdiction. 6.. Reassessments are therefore hereby set aside as also consequential proceedings for imposition of penalty. The original petition is allowed in the above terms. Order on C.M.P. No. 33836 of 1999 in O.P. No. 20517 of 1999 closed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 763
... ...
... ... ..... cting the petitioner to pay the tax, penalty and/or interest in respect of the sales made by the petitioner to M/s. Jalaram Trading Co. of Jamnagar on the ground that though the registration was cancelled on November 5, 1983, the sales were effected in their favour. We, however, make it clear that this would not preclude the respondent authorities to recover the said amount from the said M/s. Jalaram Trading co. of Jamnagar on the purchases made by the petitioner (sic) it by virtue of section 19(b)(i)(ii) of the Act, if, any case is made out by them in this regard. 14.. In view of the above observations made by us, we direct that respondent No. 1 to reframe the assessment considering the sales of groundnuts made to M/s. Jalaram Trading Co. against declarations in Form No. 24-B and redetermine tax, interest, penalty, if any, payable by the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed and Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 762
... ...
... ... ..... ncluding that part of turnover in the return filed and in the absence of deliberateness, wilfulness on the part of the assessee, we hold that the levy of penalty is not warranted on the facts of the case. Moreover, it cannot be held that the assessee has not acted bona fide as there is a bona fide doubt as to whether the amounts in question are includible as part of the sale price as two views are possible on the question of inclusion of the disputed amounts in question. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently found that there is no case for levy of penalty. We are not inclined to take a different view and the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of cancellation of penalty is upheld. 12.. In the result, the tax case revisions filed against the orders of assessments are allowed and the tax case revision filed by the Revenue against the orders of cancellation of penalty are dismissed. No costs. Petitions allowed in part.
-
2002 (7) TMI 761
... ...
... ... ..... y the petitioner on merits. For the same reason, the order dated July 16, 2001 dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner also deserves to be set aside. 3.. Before concluding, we may mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner stated before us that during the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 7,93,700 out of which the department has refunded only Rs. 3,74,276 and that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the balance amount. We are not examining the issue in this case and it will be open to the petitioner to claim refund, if any, due to it from the department in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated August 13, 1998, December 4, 1998 and July 16, 2001 are quashed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 5.. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on July 22, 2002 for further proceedings. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 760
... ...
... ... ..... see has not established that he had acted as an agent of the local buyer and he has not established the terms in the contract prohibiting diversion of the goods after import. In the absence of any material to support the case of the assessee that it had acted as an agent of the local buyer and in the absence of any evidence to show that there was an inextricable link between the import of the goods and sale to the local buyer, we hold that the Joint Commissioner was correct in holding that the goods moved from the foreign seller to the assessee in pursuance of the contract of sale between the assessee and the foreign seller. Thereafter, the assessee sold the goods to the local buyer and therefore, it was treated and rightly so as inter-State sales liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. We hold that the order of the Joint Commissioner does not call for any interference. 14.. With the result, the tax appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 759
... ...
... ... ..... 1985-86. However, the clarification issued by the department was not made available to the learned Judges nor was the judgment in Mundran Kala Mandir case 1980 46 STC 365 (Mad.), was brought to the notice of the learned Judges. Again what the printed material was also not clear from the judgment. We do not know as to whether the learned Judges were considering the alphabet charts or some other thing because there is no indication in the judgment that they were considering the alphabet charts. In that view, we are of the clear opinion that the judgment in Papco Offset Printers case 2000 118 STC 160 (Mad.), would be of no help to the State. 12.. On the whole, it will have to be held that the Joint Commissioner had erred in upsetting the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner is, therefore, set aside and the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
........
|
