|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 537 Records
-
2004 (11) TMI 565 - SUPREME COURT
Whether even if a retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by the HIgh Court, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case?
-
2004 (11) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT
Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused?
Whether if the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material should be looked into by the court at that stage?
-
2004 (11) TMI 563 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... equal to the duty amount or there is a discretion with the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority to reduce the same. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. BHEL (supra) held that under the Act, the assessing authority has the discretion to levy lesser amount depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This view was followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ambuja Synthetics Mills Ltd. and Anr. (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra). Hon'ble High Court held that the mandatory penalty provided under Rule 96ZO is the maximum penalty and the authorities have discretion to impose the lesser penalty. In view of the above discussion and respectively following the decision of the above Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. BHEL, the penalty is reduced to ₹ 50,000. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2004 (11) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the matter of determining and compounding deviations it is the law as on the date of such decision which would apply or the one as was prevailing on the date of commission of the illegal act would apply?
Whether the present case shall be determined by reference to the regulations as were prevailing prior to the coming into force of the Cuttack Development Authority (Planning and Building Standard) Regulations, 2001?
-
2004 (11) TMI 561 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t fall under Tariff Item 2505.90 by virtue of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 25. It is settled law that where technical processes are concerned, findings of the Tribunal are ordinarily not to be disturbed. In this case nothing has been shown to us to arrive at a different conclusion. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to levy or becomes leviable at a concessional rate. Therefore, the seizure of liability is not contemplated with reference to the buyer or the dealer but is with reference to the transaction. The transaction in question were of a sale and purchase. A sale by the revisionist is purchase by the other side and, therefore, there was a transaction of sale on the one side and purchase on the other the purchase was liable to tax and because of the declaration the purchase ceased to be taxable in the hands of the purchaser. The declarations were patently wrong because the dealer revisionist was a manufacturer and not a purchaser, therefore, the dealer to whom the goods were sold could not be a subsequent purchaser and form III-C(2) could not be issued in terms of rule 12B(7)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Order of Tribunal dated August 8, 1995 is set aside.
-
2004 (11) TMI 559 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tral sales tax component from which rebate has to be allowed in terms of section 15(c) of the Act. In spite of such earlier decision of the very same Tribunal, which was decided as early as in 1999, without referring to the said decision, and without even distinguishing the said decision if there are any grounds, the Tribunal (consisted of two members) took totally a different view in effect the order reflecting the substance of the circular of the Commissioner, which was held to be bad by this court. Under the above circumstances, this court declares that the interpretation of section 8A(1)(a) read with section 15(c) of the Act by the Tribunal in Satyanarayana Raw and Boiled Rice Mill 39 s case 2002 34 APSTJ 153, is incorrect and it does not reflect the intention of Legislature in formulating the said provision. Consequently, the circular of Commissioner dated February 24, 2003 and the revisional orders are set aside. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 558 - SUPREME COURT
Conviction orders - Held that:- From the evidence of PW-4 that he had taken the seal from PSI Thorat and after preparing the seizure report, panchnama, etc. he carried both the packets to the police station and handed over the packets as well as the seal to Inspector Yadav. According to him on the next day, he took back the packets from the police station and sent them to PW-3, Manohar Joshi, Scientific Assistant in the Crime Branch, who forwarded the same to PW-1 for chemical analysis. In these circumstances, there is justification for the argument that since the seal as well as the packets were in the custody of the same person; there was every possibility of the seized substance being tampered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
PW-2, the panch witness associated in this case appears to be a stock witness. The other panch witness has not been examined. PW-2 admitted in very clear terms that he was earlier associated in two other cases under N.D.P.S. Act as panch witness. In both those cases, PSI Thorat was the investigating officer. On 14 the December, 1994, he had been summoned by PSI Thorat and acted as a panch witness in the case against P.C. Kulbi, who as noticed earlier disclosed the complicity of the appellant. Thereafter, in the instant case, he was requested by PW-4 to act as a panch witness. It appears that PSI Thorat was also associated with this case as he was present with PW-4 when P.C. Kulbi was apprehended and thereafter when the appellant herein was apprehended and searched at the instance of the aforesaid Kulbi.
Thus in view of the aforesaid features of the case, we find it unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
-
2004 (11) TMI 557 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court has taken the same views. Hence, we find from all these decided cases that liability to pay tax can only be fixed after initiating a proceeding under section 11 of the Act, 1941. In the instant case, the impugned order dated November 28, 1991 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Shyambazar Charge, fixing liability of the petitioner to pay tax under section 6D of the Act, 1941 with effect from January 1, 1986, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction. The revisional orders passed by the revisional authorities accordingly are not sustainable under law and are liable to be set aside. The orders passed by the learned Commercial Tax Officer and also the order dated June 30, 2000 and July 17, 2002 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner and learned Additional Commissioner are set aside. The respondents shall take no steps on the basis of such impugned orders against the petitioner. The application is thus allowed without costs. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2004 (11) TMI 556 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessment order vide proceedings dated February 19, 2004 and found the balance of Rs. 49,855 liable to be paid by the petitioner. This is the subject-matter of the appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner wanted stay of collection of this amount during the pendency of the appeal. Neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority adverted to these aspects of the matter. In the circumstances, both the orders referred to herein above are set aside. The appellate authority is now directed to pass appropriate order on the stay petition filed by the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in this order. The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on December 6, 2004 along with a copy of this order and the appellate authority shall immediately take up the application for hearing of the stay petition and pass appropriate orders within three days thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 555 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, as stated above. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in BPL Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2001 121 STC 450 2001 1 JT SC 599 and of this court in Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2003 131 STC 160 2003 UPTC 10 are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The petition is therefore allowed. A mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner is issued to the respondents and they are directed to levy tax on the electronic video projectors and electronic data projectors manufactured and sold by the petitioner at the rate applicable to the electronic goods under entry 75(iii) of the Notification dated January 29, 2000 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The impugned order dated February 28, 2003 is quashed insofar it relates to the imposition of tax at the higher rate on the electronic video projectors and electronic data projectors manufactured and sold by the petitioner.
-
2004 (11) TMI 554 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting rigor of penalty. In our opinion the power to impose penalty cannot be exercised automatically and without there being any case made out for that purpose. A case to that effect is required to be made out as required under the penalty section. A categorical finding is required to be recorded on facts by the assessing officer indicating any malice or any contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee in either concealing any material fact or any act indulged in avoiding payment of tax legally due. Since in this case, the Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding of fact in favour of the assessee accepting his explanation offered by him for deleting the penalty, we are of the considered opinion that the question referred to this Court has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the State (Revenue). Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion we answer the question referred to this court against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 553 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Trade Tax Act, 1948. The apex court held that process of refining of oil amounts to manufacturing with the definition of section 2(e-1) of the Act. There is no such dispute in the present case. The decision of the apex court has to be read in the context of the case. In the present case, the apex court in the case of Tungabhadra Industries Limited 1960 11 STC 827, and division Bench of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prag Ice and Oil Mills 1975 35 STC 520, which has been affirmed by the apex court held that the refined groundnut oil remains the same as groundnut oil. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the refined rapeseed oil and refined mustard oil is liable to taxed at the rate of one percent under Notification No. ST-II-1376/X-902(63)-50, dated April 1, 1968. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated February 17, 1994 is set aside. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11(8) of the Act.
-
2004 (11) TMI 552 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... missioner from interfering with any issue decided by the appellate authority in appeal, eventhough under section 35(2A) the Deputy Commissioner can suo motu revise assessment on issues not decided in appeal. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority under section 35 to suo motu revise appellate orders which in this case is issued by an officer of the same rank. He can only interfere with the assessment orders, including modified orders based on orders in appeals, but on issues not decided in appeals. In this particular case, the Deputy Commissioner has interfered with the appellate order modifying assessment on the very same issue decided in appeal which is prohibited by section 35. Therefore exhibit P17 is without jurisdiction and I vacate the same. However, if second appeal is filed by the department against exhibit P14, they can pursue the same. O.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order on C.M.P No. 36391 of 1997 in O.P. No. 20288 of 1997(M) dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 551 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mendment to section 35(1) vide Act 13 of 1998 if any assessee is aggrieved by an assessment, he has to only file appeal against the assessment. The only ground on which the petitioner filed application under section 35(1) is to avoid limitation provided for filing appeal which was over long before filing application for suo motu revision. Therefore, the petitioner 39 s application was rightly rejected by the Deputy Commissioner as the same is not maintainable under section 35(1) of the KGST Act. It has to be noted that even if applications were entertained, I do not think that the petitioner has any case on merits. The item sold by the petitioner is stated to be composition books which are only note books not exempt under serial No. 5 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act which grants exemption on books, journals, magazines and weeklies which are obviously published reading materials. The original petition is therefore devoid of any merit and the hence the same is dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 550 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te of rupees fifty per year in the prescribed manner before the commencement of the assessment years to which the fee relates, failing which the recognition certificate shall cease to remain in force Provided that if the dealer deposits such fee after the commencement of the assessment year to which the fee relates together with a (1)The quotation appears to be from Cape Brandy syndicate v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue 1921 1 KB 64. late fee of twenty-five rupees for every month of delay or part thereof, the assessing authority may, on being satisfied that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in depositing the fee in time and after recording his reasons therefor in writing, direct that the recognition certificate shall be deemed to have remained in force as if no delay had occurred in depositing the fee. For the reasons stated above, order of the Tribunal is erroneous and accordingly, set aside. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2004 (11) TMI 549 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 cannot be accepted. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that no such argument was raised. However, if such arguments have been raised and not considered, it is open to the applicant to move an application under section 22 of the Act before the Tribunal. It is further stated that even in according to applicant own case, machinery were purchased prior to the date of the agreement and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case covered under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Reference of a proposal for leasing of machinery and equipment prior to the date of the leased agreement is not relevant because it was mere a proposal and it appears that such document is neither a part of the alleged leased agreement nor it was placed before any of the authorities below. For the reasons stated above, both the revisions have no force. No other point has been raised. In the result, both the revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 548 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... ngh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate-General fairly stated that question No. 1 sought by the petitioner would require consideration by this court. We have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gobind Sugar Mill 39 s case 1999 115 STC 358 and are convinced that the following question of law would require determination by this court Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is liable to purchase tax under the general enactment of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 or Haryana General Sales Tax Act, while he is paying tax on his purchases of Sugarcane under the special enactment known as the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 as applicable to the State of Haryana? Hence, the petition is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the aforementioned question to this court.
-
2004 (11) TMI 547 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do substantive justice only when it is shown that gross injustice has been done. In the instant case, we do not find any infirmity with the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge. We also do not find it to be a case in the category of gross injustice . We are of the opinion that it will be a sound discretion to refrain from entertaining the writ petitions in view of the statutory alternative remedy, which the petitioner/appellant have already pursued. The aforesaid observation of the apex court relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction in appropriate case will have to be understood. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeals warranting any interference in the impugned judgment and order dated August 9, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule Nos. 5 of 1996, 10 of 1996 and 11 of 1996. Consequently, the writ appeals stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2004 (11) TMI 546 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner gave his reply on July 29, 2004 which reads as under We have received your notice dated C.C.T. ENFT. RC No. D.C.T.O. IV th/LAMINATED SHEETS/2004, dated July 26, 2004. Herewith we are giving our quotation of sale price of laminated sheets as per below 24cm x 12cm Laminated Sheets Rs. 220 per sheet 12 per cent APGST. The letter written by the department asking the petitioner to quote the price was unambiguous as also the reply given by the petitioner. There is another facet of the case. The petitioner in this writ petition claims only 760 laminated sheets and there is invoice only for 760 sheets, but in the counteraffidavit it is submitted that while checking the vehicle the respondent found 1167 laminated sheets being carried by vehicle. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to a price at the rate of Rs. 220 per sheet sales tax for 760 laminated sheets alone as he had not claimed all 1167 laminated sheets. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
........
|
