|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 537 Records
-
2004 (11) TMI 545 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Schedule to the Act, in our opinion, the State Government while issuing notification has exempted only chemical fertilizers simpliciter, and not a mixture of two or more chemical fertilizers. If it is understood in that manner, in our opinion, the revisional authority was justified in invoking his powers under section 22A of the Act to set at naught the orders passed by the first appellate authority, who had misunderstood the language employed in the notification to grant exemption on the sales turnover of chemical fertilizer mixture under section 6B of the Act. Since the order passed by the revisional authority is in consonance with entry 11 of the Second Schedule to the Act and the language of the notification, we are of the view that the revisional authority was justified in annulling the order passed by the first appellate authority and in restoring the order passed by the assessing authority. In view of the above, appeals fail and they are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (11) TMI 544 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is not relevant and true nature of transactions has to be examined on the fact of the case. I have perused the order of the Tribunal, which was passed for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. After remand by the apex court, the Tribunal, only on the basis of order for the assessment year 1984-85, held the dealer as a commission agent without examining the real nature of transaction and without examining whether there was any contract of agency between the parties to make the dealer a commission agent and therefore, order of the Tribunal has no relevance in the present case. In any view of the matter, each year is an independent year and facts of each year have to be examined independently. Tribunal is directed to examine the matter afresh in the light of observations made above. In the result, revisions are allowed in part. Order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to examine the matter afresh in the light of observations made above.
-
2004 (11) TMI 543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd at no stage, title in the goods was transferred by the opposite party in favour of the consumer. No amount was received towards sales consideration. Moreover, to be a dealer a person must carry on the business of buying, selling supplying or distributing goods. Business is defined in section 2(aa). Definition of business in section 2(aa) excludes any activity in the nature of mere service or profession which does not involve the purchase or sale of goods. As stated above, the opposite party had only rendered services in which, there was no involvement of purchase or sale of goods. Therefore, it was not involved in carrying on the business and does not come within the purview of dealer defined under section 2(c) of the Act. In the circumstances, in my opinion, Tribunal has rightly held that in respect of impugned transaction, opposite party was not a dealer and was not liable to tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. In the result, all the five revisions fail and are dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 542 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d held that the application under section 22 was within time. 9.. I do not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the order could be rectified within three years from the date of order in view of limitation contemplated under section 17(3) of the Act No. 8 of 1992 while the order has been rectified beyond three years. As held earlier, section 17(3) was not applicable in the present case. In the present case, only section 22 of the Act was applicable under which applications were moved, in which limitation to file application was three years and in case, application was filed within three years, there was no limitation for passing the order and therefore, rectification of the order dated November 14, 1991 and May 16, 1991 under section 22 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 10.. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in all the revisions. 11.. In the result, all the four revisions fails and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed
-
2004 (11) TMI 541 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on and specie including old ornaments meant for melting as provided in the notification dated September 7, 1981 was substituted retrospectively with effect from September 7, 1981 by section 11 of the U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1987 and the qualifying words meant for melting was omitted. Thus, all old ornaments were made liable to tax at the point of first purchase. Thus, a mistake which is apparent on the record in the order of the Tribunal has crept in view of the retrospective amendment in law. It is well-settled that if any amendment is made which has retrospective effect, the order passed by the authority on the basis of pre-existing law is liable to be rectified and is to be made in conformity with the law as it stands after retrospective amendment. In this view of the matter the order dated August 30, 1990 passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 7.. The Tribunal is directed to decide the application afresh. The revision succeeds and is allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 540 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roduct for the same assessment year if a different view is taken in the matter of another assessee on the same set of facts, it will be discriminatory. We also note that the amount involved is not substantial and the notification itself was amended in 1992 followed by another detailed amendment in 1993 and therefore revenue impact also is lesser. Therefore, it cannot be stated that it will seriously jeopardise the interest of the Revenue or public interest and there is no just cause in demanding an amount from one assessee alone without challenging Subbayya Pillai 39 s case 1993 91 STC 406, on identical facts for the same assessment year. In the above circumstances, the assessee in this case alone cannot be denied exemption for the year 1984-85. Hence, though we are not accepting the ratio of the judgment in Subbayya Pillai 39 s case 1993 91 STC 406 as such, we decline to reverse the Tribunal 39 s decision. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of.
-
2004 (11) TMI 539 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We have considered the decision of the apex Court in Agra Belting Works 1987 66 STC 1 (1987) 3 SCC 140, and other cases. It is required to be noted that even if two judgments of the apex Court appear to be inconsistent on common issues brought before it in two different cases, it is expected to follow both the verdicts and try as best as possible to resolve the seeming conflict, if any, between the two decisions of the Supreme Court. We have examined all the judgments and we are required to follow the principles laid down by the courts. It is difficult for the court to depart from the reasoning indicated by various judgments of the Supreme Court as indicated in Agra Belting Works case 1987 66 STC 1 (1987) 3 SCC 140, and more particularly when in the later judgment in Kothari Products Ltd. 2000 119 STC 553 (SC) (2000) 9 SCC 263, the matter was on a different point. 19.. In view of the above, we find no merits in the petition and the same is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 538 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rticular size or strength or weight. It may be in small pieces or in big rolls it may be weak or strong, light or heavy, bleached or dyed, according to the requirement of the purchaser. The use to which it may be put is also immaterial and does not bear on its character as a textile. 20.. In State of Madras v. T.T. Gopalier 1968 21 STC 451, a division Bench of the Madras High Court considered the question whether braided cords would fall within the ambit of the term textiles appearing in entry 4 of Schedule III of Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and answered the same in the affirmative. 21.. In our opinion, neither of these judgments has any bearing on the determination of the question referred in the present case because the Supreme Court and Madras High Court did not deal with sleevings manufactured by the assessee. 22. In the result, the question referred to this Court is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
2004 (11) TMI 537 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tment after noticing these aspects and keeping in view sometimes the intention of the manufacturer as also one of the determinative factor, rightly in our view, has treated the commodity sold by the assessee under two different heads and this, in our view, is not only justified but also the correct approach made by the assessing authority for quantification of the tax liability of the assessee/appellant. 17.. In conclusion going by ordinary connotation as also its meaning as understood in commercial parlance and reference to the commodity to which the commodity is put to use, in our view, roofing tiles which are exclusively used for the purpose of roofing and those tiles which are used for decorative purpose in a building cannot be brought under the same entry. 18.. We, accordingly, do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. Appeals dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 536 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sought to be achieved by the Government of Madhya Pradesh by amending the relevant section of the Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court held that it was not discriminatory. 8.. In Roxy Roller Flour Pvt. Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1994 94 STC 464 (AP) (1994) 18 APSTJ 139, it was held that the power to grant exemption includes the power to rescind. It was also held that in matters involving exercise of legislative functions the question of principles of natural justice would not arise. 9.. For the reasons given hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. W.P. Nos. 19637 of 2000, 22937 of 2000, 23056 of 2000, 23149 of 2000, 19879 of 2002, 20787 of 2001 and 24601 of 2001. 10.. It is submitted that these writ petitions are similar to W.P. No. 21878 of 1999. Therefore we direct that the judgment in W.P. No. 21878 of 1999 shall also govern these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 535 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 5, the Legislature had the liberty to put them in exclusion clause along with sports goods. In fact, after the MPGST Act was repealed and replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, the Legislature amended the entry relating to leather goods falling in Part III of Schedule II (entry No. 8) and added footwears in the exclusion clause along with sports goods, thereby taking out two kinds of specified goods from the entry. This could have been done because admittedly these goods are made of leather. Since this was not done, the entry No. 5 will continue to govern the field so far as its taxability in respect of these two items are concerned. 11.. In view of aforesaid discussion, we answer the two questions referred supra in favour of State and against the assessee. In other words, we answer the question by holding that products in question are covered by entry No. 5 in Part III, Schedule II to the MPGST Act, 1958. No costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
2004 (11) TMI 534 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... visions of sub-clause (3) of section 44 of the Act, the respondent authorities were duty bound to return their books of accounts after 120 days as the Commissioner has not passed any order authorising detention beyond 120 days. 10.. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the petitioner-company is liable to pay taxes on the goods supplied in the execution of works contract regarding annual maintenance of the fax and copier machine with effect from May 1, 1997, the date on which entry No. 36, Schedule VI, came into force. The notices for the earlier periods, therefore, stand quashed. The respondent authorities will be at liberty to take necessary action under the law in respect of the works contract with effect from May 1, 1997 only. So far the retention of the books of accounts are concerned, we direct the respondent authorities to return the same to the petitioner forthwith. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (11) TMI 533 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in allowing the reduction/refund of sales tax on the returned/damaged goods. The law on this point was laid down by the apex court in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh 1970 77 ITR 6, held Where the Addl. Commissioner did not exercise his discretion and judgment and acted on audit objection, the notice cannot be sustained. 25.. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that no case for entertaining revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes was made out and, as such, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and the consequential orders passed by the assessing authorities are bad in law and cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated August 27, 1999 and October 22, 1999 are set aside and the earlier orders of assessment dated May 31, 1996 and November 21, 1996 are restored. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 532 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax into deferment of tax could not be treated as legal and justified because sub-rule (6) of rule 69 read with annexure R-1 nowhere provides that the dealer is required to furnish 100 per cent bank guarantee. Therefore, insistence of the concerned authority for furnishing of 100 per cent bank guarantee as a condition precedent for grant of deferment cannot be approved. 11.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Assessing Authority is directed to issue deferment certificate in terms of application dated June 2, 2003 made by the petitioner. The needful be done within one month from the date of receipt/submission of certified copy of this order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12.. Before parting with the case, we make it clear that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument on the question of vires of section 61(2)(d) of the VAT Act and, therefore, we have refrained from adjudicating upon that question. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 531 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat in the instant case there was no fresh material with the assessing officer and there was no information with the assessing officer nor is there anything to show that the assessee concealed some material from the assessing officer so as to enable him to reopen the case. In view of the law which we have discussed above and other decisions it is clear that, merely because the assessing officer has changed his opinion, the assessing officer cannot call upon the assessee for reassessment and cannot issue coercive notice. 11.. In view of the well-settled position of law as discussed hereinabove and the facts of this case, which we have indicated above, it is clear that it is a case of a mere change of opinion and nothing more. Therefore, the petition is required to be allowed. The reassessment orders dated August 7, 2003 and August 8, 2003 are accordingly quashed and set aside. 12.. The writ petition is allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 530 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unsel appearing the department fairly concedes that the matter is squarely covered against the department by decision rendered by this Court in Prabhat Sound Studios v. Additional Collector of Central Excise 1997 107 STC 70 (SC) (1996) 88 ELT 635 (SC) (1997) 10 SCC 543. Hence, this appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the CEGAT is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. This only shows that the Revenue had conceded that the controversy before the court was covered by another judgment. The Supreme Court in this case, had no occasion to go into the correctness or otherwise of the judgment reported in Prabhat Sound Studios v. Additional Collector of Central Excise 1997 107 STC 70 (1996) 88 ELT 635 (SC). 5.. For these reasons, we allow this T.R.C. and set aside the order of the Tribunal as it relates to the controversy discussed hereinabove. However, we confirm the finding of the first appellate authority with regard to the rate of tax. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 529 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shall be open to them to recover such amount from the petitioners. 35.. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that (a) the activity of the petitioners does not involve the process of manufacture, irrespective of the difference as to the form, in which it is purchased by the industry, and the form in which the same is supplied to its customers. (b) Incentive of deferment/tax holiday on sales tax under G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996 are available only to those industries, where the process of manufacturing takes place, subject, to their not having been excluded under the annexure. (c) The liability to pay the tax arising out of cancellation of incentives would start from the date on which such orders become operative, and it shall be open to the Government to recover any tax from such units, if it is found that they have collected the sales tax on such product during the subsistence of the incentives. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (11) TMI 528 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hallenged and it has been held that the impugned condition travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act. Thus the above decision is not applicable in the present case. 16.. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the condition placed in the notification dated February 16, 2004 that if the sale is made to the stone crusher the point of sale on which the tax will be payable shall be the point of sale by the stone crusher and if the dealer has deposited the tax on the purchase of the goods by the stone crushers then such amount is liable to be adjusted/ refunded in accordance with the section 29-A of the Act, is beyond the scope of section 3-A(1)(b) of the Act. 17.. The writ petition is allowed. The condition imposed in the notification dated February 16, 2004 is quashed. If any tax had been realised in pursuance of the said condition of the notification, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners, at the earliest. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (11) TMI 527 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 996) 23 APSTJ 141 held that the only condition prescribed for issue of waybills is payment of costs and payment of tax is not one of the conditions prescribed thereon. That even if any tax is due from the petitioner, denial of the way-bills is not the proper way to recover the tax. 3.. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent herein to forthwith issue the way-bills as prayed for by the petitioner subject to payment of costs. The respondent shall not withhold the issuance of way-bills on the ground that the tax is due from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2004 (11) TMI 526 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lied in a tanker to the customer at his request the local authority will collect only the transport charges and not the cost of the water or as the price for water supplied and therefore, at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the consumer purchased the water by paying money to the Municipal Corporation. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that the water charges of Rs. 12,66,980 paid by the Hindusthan Shipyard Limited, the respondent herein, to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is not eligible for tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. In view of the above observations, as there is no material placed before this Court that the Municipal Corporation is selling the water to the respondent for a consideration of price, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and this revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 6.. The tax revision case is therefore dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
........
|
