|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 520 Records
-
2004 (5) TMI 584
... ...
... ... ..... ection 158 of the Act. Rules framed under the provisions of a statute form part of the statute. (See General Office Commanding-in-Chief and Anr. v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 351, paragraph 14). In other words, DCR have statutory force. It is also a settled position of law that there could be no 'promissory estoppel' against a statue. (A.P Pollution Control Board II v. M V Nayudu (2001) 2 SCC 62, paragraph 69, Sales Tax Officer and Another v. Shree Durga Oil Mills (1998) 1 SCC 572, paragraphs 21 and 22 and Sharma Transport v. Govt. of AP (2002) 2 SCC 188, paragraphs 13 to 24). Therefore, the High Court again went wrong by invoking the principle of 'promissory estoppel' to allow the petition filed by the Respondents herein. For the foregoing reasons, the view adopted by the High Court cannot be sustained. These appeals are allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court and the writ petitions filed before the High Court are dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 583
... ...
... ... ..... ssages quoted above from the judgment in T.M.A. Pai ((2002) 8 SCC 481) to project their respective contentions. When a larger Bench consisting of eleven Judges of this Court in T.M.A. Pai ((2002) 8 SCC 481) has declared what the law on the matter is, we do not want to dilute the effect of the same by analysing various statements made therein or indulge in any dissection of the principles underlying it. We would rather state that the State Government shall take note of the declarations of law made by this Court in this regard and make suitable amendments to their laws, rules and regulations to bring them in conformity with the principles set out therein. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to examine whether the present rules are valid or not. Until such time as such rules are framed in terms of the order made by us now, the interim orders made by this Court in these proceedings will be operative. These petitions shall stand allowed in terms of what is stated above.
-
2004 (5) TMI 582
... ...
... ... ..... t decision, the revenue has preferred these appeals, inter alia, contending that the penalty which was levied under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) could not be set aside. The Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at the aforesaid conclusion. 4. Whether there is "reasonable cause" or not, is a question of fact. In the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India 2001 252 ITR 4711 (Delhi), the court considered these aspects. We have already examined this in ITA 17/2003 and other matters decided this morning session and, considering these aspects, we are of the opinion that as no question of law arises in the present case the appeals are required to be dismissed. It is made clear that in the appeals, the Court has examined only the question with regard to "reasonable cause" and no other aspect. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (5) TMI 581
... ...
... ... ..... and no other, we also find that the non-resident owner or charterer of the ship has an option under section 172 itself, to be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and it is in exercise of this option, as evident from page 3 of the statement of facts before the CIT(A), that the assessee has preferred that option. Anyway, that does not make any difference to the situation before us, because whether the assessee is treated as in 'occasional shipping business', as is referred to in section 172 or not, this aspect, in our understanding, is not relevant in determining whether or not the operation of ships is 'casual' or 'more than casual'. The plea raised by the assessee does not meet our approval for this reason also. 30. For the detailed reasons set out above, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to differ therewith. 31. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 580
... ...
... ... ..... -s. (1) of s. 150 also provide that notwithstanding, anything contained in s. 149, the notice for assessment or reassessment or recomputation can be issued in consequence of the finding or direction given by any authority in the order of appeal. The relevant sub-s. (1) of s. 150 of the Act reads as under "Notwithstanding anything contained in s. 149, the notice under s. 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law. 6. Considering the admission of the counsel for the assessee that the amount and value of the gold can be taxed in 1988-89 and provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 150 of the IT Act, we see no reason to interfere in the appeal. 7. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.
-
2004 (5) TMI 579
... ...
... ... ..... es in the immediately preceding year, and (2) experience of manufacturing registration plates in 3/5 countries are also quashed. JUDGMENT S. Rajendra Babu, C.J. 30. I had the advantage of reading the draft judgment prepared by my learned Brother Mathur, J. and I regret my inability to agree with him. 31. The object of the relevant provisions, which are under challenge before this Court is not to create a monopoly in favour of any person as has been held by my learned Brother. I cannot also agree that Clause 4(x) of the Motor Vehicles New High Security Vehicle Registration Plates Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government on 22nd August, 2001 deserves to be quashed. I am not giving detailed reasons because in any event the matter will have to go to a larger bench for due appreciation of the matter. 32. In view of the disagreement between us, the matter is referred to a larger bench. ORDER 33. In view of the disagreement between us, the matters are referred to a large Bench.
-
2004 (5) TMI 578
... ...
... ... ..... ds of the case. We find that even though the assesses was not correct in using the old invoices as a matter of fact there are no two sets of clearances one under the old invoices and the other under the new invoices. The assessee was only rectifying the mistake by issuing the new invoices after making identical entries thereon. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the assessee that if the assessee had any malafide intention they would not have kept the old invoices got returned from their customers along with the records in the factory. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in the allegation of clandestine removal. Even otherwise as was held by this Tribunal in Ammonia Gas Supply Company Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi the activity willnot amount to manufacture arid there cannot be any duty liability. 8. For the above reasons, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal. Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 26.5.2004.
-
2004 (5) TMI 577
... ...
... ... ..... ores and odd, though in fact it is only ₹ 8.69 crores. Mr. Paresh Dave further states that in view of the financial position of the petitioners, it is not possible for the petitioners to deposit any amount and that the petitioners are not interested in getting any interim stay of execution of the orders under challenge in the appeals before the Tribunal but all that the petitioners want is that the appeals may be heard on merits. 4. Since the impugned order of the Tribunal grants conditional stay in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners do not want any interim stay as such, it is open to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal with a Miscellaneous Application making the above request and also requesting for hearing the appeals on merits in the regular course. As and when such an application is moved, the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. With the above observations and direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (5) TMI 576
... ...
... ... ..... 0 lakhs, only then, the contents of Notification 1/93-C.E., are not applicable. This is not the case that the respondents had exceeded this eligibility limit in the previous year. Therefore, the provisions of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. will apply to them. The terms used in the circular are “unit availing of exemption under Notification 1/93”. Therefore, availing of exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is a qualification, which is applied to the factory/unit and not to the individual clearances of excisable goods, beyond a certain value. (i.e. above ₹ 50 lakhs). 9. Accordingly, it is obvious that the unit is clearly qualified to be a unit availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and the objection that it is not entitled for the benefit of deemed credit as prescribed in the Order TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-94 is not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is rejected, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is affirmed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 575
Whether 'slimes' exigible to charge of royalty, as forming part and parcel of iron ore?
Whether 'Slime' or 'slimes' cannot be included in 'fines' or 'concentrates' for the purpose of charging royalty under Section 9(1) read with Entry-23 of the Second Schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 ?
-
2004 (5) TMI 574
... ...
... ... ..... old that IMFL is nota final product in the instant case. We are, therefore, left onlywith the rectified spirit. Rectified spirit is an excisable productas it is classifiable under Chapter 22. Thus both the words "Exemptfrom the whole of duty of excise or chargeable to nil rate of duty"will be applicable to rectified spirit. Rectified spirit is alsocleared as rectified spirit and therefore, an amount of 8 of theprice shall be reversible. We accordingly hold that 8 of the saleprice of extra neutral alcohol and rectified spirit which arechargeable to nil rate of duty while removing from the factory shallbe debitable and hence is sustainable in law." In view of the afore stated decision of the Tribunal, followingthe same, we do not find any merit in the plea of the department. Thecase law referred to by learned DR in case of Wheel and Axle Plant(supra) is not applicable to the fact of this case. Accordingly, weallow the appeal. Pronounced in the Court on 5.5.2004.
-
2004 (5) TMI 573
Whether the High Court given a correct direction to the State Government to issue circulars to all the police stations instructing the police officials that the woman accused/witness should not be summoned or required to attend at any police station under Section 160 Cr.P.C. but they must be enquired only by women police or in the presence of a women police, at the places where they reside?
-
2004 (5) TMI 572
... ...
... ... ..... n this widespread malpractice which is seriously harming the national economy must be stopped The Government cannot run and it cannot carry on its welfare programmes if it does not receive taxes. As observed by the Supreme Court in Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 330 (vide Para 7) "No government business or for that matter no business of any kind can be run on mere bank guarantees. Liquid cash is necessary for the running of Government or indeed any other enterprise." Thus the petitioners are not entitled to the protection of the principle laid by the decision in Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd (supra). 20. This Court has taken the same view in Sri Ram Gupta v. The Assistant collector (Collection) Trade Tax, Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2003, decided on 5.9.2003 and in Naresh Chandra Gupta v. The District Magistrate, Writ Petition No, 382 of 2003, decided on 13.3.2003. 21. Following the aforesaid decisions this petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 571
... ...
... ... ..... t re-employed, and thus they and their families consisting of 1500 persons would get back their bread and butter. It is also stated in this supplementary affidavit that the financial institutions which have 44.24 shares in the Company have not applied for winding up. The O.K. which has 16.85 share has categorically opposed the winding up petition. 31. It is not necessary for us to go into the correctness or otherwise of these facts because we are of the opinion that for the reasons given above, and particularly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rehab Agro Industries Ltd. (Supra), this appeal deserves to be allowed. 32. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.3.2004 is quashed and it is directed that the proceedings before the learned Company Judge shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of the proceedings / appeal before the authorities under the Sick Industrial Companies Act.
-
2004 (5) TMI 570
... ...
... ... ..... s of revenue can be no ground to decline the request. In any case, where reduction in seating capacity is granted, loss of revenue is bound to occur and if that was the consideration, then no application under section 3D of the Act can ever be allowed. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order dated December 5, 2002 (annexure P/7) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the District Magistrate, Amritsar-cum-licensing authority to decide the claim of the petitioners afresh in the light of observations made above. Since the matter has been hanging fire for a long time, the district magistrate-cum-licensing authority, Amritsar shall take necessary action within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that, till the decision by the District Magistrate-cum-licensing authority, the recovery of the disputed amount shall remain stayed. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
2004 (5) TMI 569
... ...
... ... ..... ds what becomes waste for the manufacturer during the manufacturing process. From the above definition there can be a little doubt that after cutting the sheets in the desired shape and size, for the purpose of manufacturing fans and electric stamping, remainder is obviously left over from a manufacturing process and is a waste product, as defined above. The same conclusion can be reached from another angle also. The assessing authority has treated the remainder as scrap. The dealer-opposite party purchases sheets. After taking out portions from the sheets remainder is scrap. Scrap is taxable at the point of manufacturer or importer. The dealer would be manufacturer of the scrap. As such in view of the eligibility certificate the turnover of scrap shall also be exempted from the levy of sales tax as all the items manufactured by it in view of the notification referred to above are, exempt from the tax. In the result I find no force in the revision. The revision is dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 568
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. 2004 134 STC 24 AIR 2004 SC 11, has made some observations, which apparently do support to the argument of the dealer. But if the judgment is read as a whole, it would be clear that it was examining a different controversy. The case was under the Central Excise Act. The assessee was using coal as a fuel for generating steam. Coal converted into cinder and the department sought to levy excise duty on the production of cinder. In this connection it was observed that the department has itself described it as unburnt part of coal and cinder is coal of reduced quality. These observations should be understood in the context of facts and controversy involved in that case. The Supreme Court was not considering of interpreting a taxing entry under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In the result the order of the Tribunal on this point cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed as observed above. The Tribunal shall pass a consequential order under section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
-
2004 (5) TMI 567
... ...
... ... ..... l is burnt. The Tribunal, while setting aside the finding of the authorities below on this issue has not recorded a finding that it can be used like coal as fuel. Therefore, I am of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid division Bench judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case is nearer to the facts of Mahabir Singh Ram Babu 1962 13 STC 248 (All). The said question is decided accordingly and is held that coal ash is taxable not as coal but as unclassified item. The question No. 2 is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this court(1) given in the case of dealer itself. The said Full Bench has been followed recently in 2003 38 STR 608, in the case of dealer itself. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is confirmed and it is held that cardigan and pullovers are taxable as woollen hosiery and not as woollen goods . The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is confirmed. In the result the revision is allowed in part, as indicated above.
-
2004 (5) TMI 566
... ...
... ... ..... would only clarify the earlier notification in so far as the method that requires to be adopted for calculating the tax exemption that an existing industrial unit can avail of, for the period mentioned in the certificate issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce. Since, in our opinion, the subsequent notification dated October 11, 1995 is clarificatory in nature, it would not take away the tax relief granted earlier. In view of the above, in our opinion, the learned single judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the subsequent notification dated October 11, 1995 would take away the vested right of the new industrial units. In that view of the matter, the order made by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7112 of 1998 dated July 30, 1998 cannot be sustained In the result, the following ORDER I. Writ appeal is allowed. II. The impugned order made by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7112 of 1998 dated July 30, 1998 is set aside. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (5) TMI 565
... ...
... ... ..... mitation had expired. The scope of rectification application is also same namely whether the period of limitation to complete the assessment after the remand has expired or not. Therefore, I am of the view that the principle of merger will apply in this case. The order of the Tribunal has been merged in to the order of this court passed in S.T.R. No. 292 of 1990. In such circumstances as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vijay Int. Udyog 1985 59 STC 49 1985 UPTC 131, this would have been proper that both the revisions should have been heard by this court together. But the difficulty is that it is not possible for me to rectify the judgment of this court passed in S.T.R. No. 292 of 1990 as the period of limitation of three years prescribed under section 22 of the Act has already expired. In the result the present rectification application has become infructuous. In the result there is no force in the revision. The revision is dismissed.
........
|
