|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 581 Records
-
2005 (4) TMI 569 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 568 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the vesting of power in the "Hindus" in the Council of Ministers to nominate the members of the Managing Committee could be held to violate Articles 25 and 26?
Whether the Hindu Ministers in the Council of Ministers should have faith in God and Temple worship while nominating the members to the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom under Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act?
Whether Hindu Ministers who are not believers in God and Temple Worship can, by reason of their not having faith in Hindu God and Temple worship, are disqualified from nominating the members of the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom, who should have faith in God and Temple worship, and must also make and subscribe an oath affirming their faith in God and Hindu Religion and believe in Temple worship?
-
2005 (4) TMI 567 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... given to its subsidiaries namely M/S Dhampur Yeast Company and M/S U. Straw boards and Agro Products Ltd.?" The present Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1983-84. We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties that identical question came up for consideration before this Court in Income Tax Reference No.82 of 1986 inter party and this court vide judgment and order dated 28th October, 2004 had answered the question in favour of the assessee by following its earlier decision in the case of Income Tax Reference No. 196 of 1995 decided on 30th September, 2004 which related to the assessment year, 1978-79. Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation and application of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Whether granting interim bail to the Appellant should continue subject to the same conditions?
-
2005 (4) TMI 565 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stage of issuance of process or whenever. (iii) If the transactions are witnessed by the power of attorney himself as an agent of the payee, such power of attorney alone can be a witness and his being a power of attorney cannot disentitle him from being a witness. (iv) When the transactions are witnessed by the complainant and power of attorney or any other witness or witnesses in the whole or in part, all such persons will have to be the witness of the case, and the power of attorney shall not be disentitled from being examined as witness just because he holds a power of attorney. 30. In view of the conclusions reached by this Court narrated in forgoing para, the foundation of present petition is based on an objection that the power of attorney cannot be a witness even though as narrated in the complaint that he is the person who had conducted all transactions, looses all ground whatsoever. 31. The petition does not call for any interference. Rule is accordingly discharged.
-
2005 (4) TMI 564 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... . Metafab and M/s. B.K.N. Metafab, we find that reason stated by the Assistant Commissioner for not condoning the delay is not valid. After amendment of Rule 57G by Notification No. 7/99-CE (NT) dated 07.02.1999, Modvat credit on input was not to be denied on the sole ground of delayed filing of declaration. The Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Khamakhya Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, 2000 (121) ELT247 (Tri.-LB)held that the provisions of the amended Rule could be applied to a pending Modvat case. Accordingly, in the instant case, we hold that, under Rule 57G as amended, non-filing or delayed filing of declaration by M/s. Blue Mountain and M/s. Precious Equipments was not a good ground for denying them the benefit of input duty credit on the goods supplied by M/s. Metafab and M/s. B.K.N. Metafab in the account of M/s. EPUD. The view held to this effect by Id. Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained. The Revenue's appeals are dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. I request you to make efforts to settle the arrears of tax within three days of receipt of the notice, failing which action under section 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 would be taken. A perusal of the above order shows that the Commercial Tax Officer has not decided the appellant 39 s application under section 55 but has only said that the appellant may avail of his statutory remedy of appeal under section 31 of the Act. In our opinion, the Commercial Tax Officer should have decided the application under section 55 on its merits, which he has not done. In view of the above we dispose off the writ petition with a direction that the Commercial Tax Officer should decide the application of the appellant filed under section 55 of the Act on merits expeditiously. The writ appeal is also disposed off accordingly. Consequently W.A.M.P. No. 1662 of 2005 and W.P.M.P. No. 14166 of 2005 are also dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 562 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ferent that one can say that a manufacturing process had taken place. The apex court in a recent judgment in Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited 2004 134 STC 24 AIR 2004 SC 11 held that the word manufacture is generally understood to mean as bringing into existence a new substance and that may involve a number of processes and the aim of any manufacturing activity is to have a new end-product. In the case before us the product brought from Gujarat is cement, it undergoes the process of homogenisation and the end-product is also cement which is sold in a packed condition. We are therefore satisfied that no manufacturing activity is involved in this process and therefore it cannot be said that the new unit set up by the appellant at Mangalore manufactures cement so as to be entitled to claim exemption from sales tax in terms of the notification dated November 15, 1996. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt was whether despite the process of dyeing and colouring cotton yarn would remain cotton yarn , the division Bench of the Kerala High Court said that despite the process of dyeing and colouring cotton yarn would remain cotton yarn . In the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Bareilly Rope Stores reported in 1988 69 STC 241 (All) 1987 UPTC 1200, coir yarn has been held falling under the entry of all kinds of yarn . In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Sarin Textile Mills 1975 35 STC 634, the apex court adverting to the Oxford Dictionary and Webster 39 s New World Dictionary held as follows Thus, a fibre in order to answer the description of 39 yarn 39 in the ordinary commercial sense must have two characteristics. Firstly, it should be a spun strand. Secondly, such strand should be primarily meant for use in weaving, knitting or rope-making. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the order of Tribunal. In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 559 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt. However, the respondent cannot proceed against the petitioner for realisation of whole of the amount due and payable by the fourth respondent, since his liability is restricted only for an amount equal to tax payable under the APGST Act for a year as estimated by the authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed without any order as to costs. However, it shall always be open to the petitioner to furnish the details of the property, if any, still held by the fourth respondent in order to enable the department to proceed against the fourth respondent for realisation of the arrears of tax and the information, if any, to be furnished by the petitioner herein shall duly be taken into consideration by the department so as to proceed against the fourth respondent for realisation of the arrears. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the honourable Sri Bilal Nazki, Acting Chief Justice on this tuesday the Twelth day of April, Two thousand and five.
-
2005 (4) TMI 558 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessment at this belated stage. It is open for the intelligence authority to send a report along with such documents as necessary whereupon the assessing authority shall complete the assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, in accordance with law. In the light of the above discussion, I pass the following order (i) The order passed by the third respondent dated August 2, 2004 (annexure F) and the provisional order of assessment passed by the fourth respondent dated August 21, 2004 (annexures G and H) are hereby quashed. (ii) Liberty is reserved to the fourth respondent to send a report to the assessing authority of the petitioner relating to the search of the business premises of the petitioner and seizure of documents made by him on July 5, 2003, along with such documents as are necessary whereupon the assessing authority shall complete the assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, in accordance with law. (iii) Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?
Held that:- The powers to detain, search and arrest have been conferred by Sections 41(2), 42 and 43. Under Section 42(1)(d) the officer authorized may between sunrise and sunset detain and search and if he thinks proper arrest any person who he has reason to believe has committed an offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to the notified drug or substance. The question of arrest comes after a person is detained and searched and thereafter if the officer thinks proper arrest can be effected on the foundation that the officer has reason to believe that the person so detained and searched has committed an offence punishable under Chapter IV. It cannot be said that the person accompanying the officer authorized cannot say 'No' to the proposed search even if he sees no reasonable ground for search. It is the legislative trust imposed on a superior officer to act fairly and reasonably. Therefore, it is for the accused to establish prejudice which is to be done at the trial. On the facts of the case, actually these questions do not arise. The object of requiring the search to be conducted if so required before the specified Gazetted officer or nearest Magistrate is to ensure that the officers who are charged with a duty of conducting search conduct them properly and do no harm or wrong such as planting of an offending drug by any interested party and preventing fabrication of any false evidence. The provision in essence intends to act as a safeguard against vexatious search, unfair dealings and to protect and safeguard the interest of innocent persons. In order to avoid arrest and nip the investigation in the bud thereby protecting the liberty of a person, a statutory safeguard is provided in sub- section (3) of Section 50. Power has been vested in the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer before whom the concerned person is brought on his requisition made under sub-section (2) to forthwith discharge the person without formal proceedings on his satisfaction that there is no reasonable ground for search. As a consequence, search takes place only when he declines to discharge such a person. Firstly, as noted above PW-3 arrived at the spot after the person was detained and search was proposed to be done by the officer authorized. Secondly, the respondent-accused was given the option as to whether he would like to be searched in the presence of PW-3 or the nearest magistrate. He exercised his option to be searched in the presence of PW-3.
High Court's conclusions are clearly untenable. The inevitable result is that the High Court's judgment is indefensible and is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The accused shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence. Appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 556 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the dealer and not on actual dispatch by the manufacturer the assessments were made earlier and tax was paid. Such a procedure followed by the dealer cannot be faulted. But, proceeding on the premise of suspicion of suppression of sales even when actual sales in fact had not taken place, is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the first respondent had already predetermined the issue without giving proper opportunity. Hence, we have to necessarily hold that the impugned show cause notices are not sustainable and accordingly they are set aside. 16.. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned show cause notices are quashed. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6813 of 2005 shall however, pay two sets of additional court fee since it filed writ petition challenging three separate reassessment show cause notices. 17.. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 555 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mercial production would mean the date immediately following the date of expiry of a period of the trial run or the expiry of thirty days from commencement of the trial run, whichever is earlier. On going through annexures P7, P8 and P9, it is revealed that trial production commenced from September 1, 1992 to July 31, 1993 and, therefore, according to notification (annexure R-I) it would be after expiry of trial run or expiry of thirty days from commencement of the trial run, whichever is earlier. Since trial production was commenced from September 1, 1992, therefore commercial production would be deemed to have gone or have commenced with effect from thirty days after September 1, 1992. Thus, contention of the petitioner was rightly repelled that commercial production should have been deemed to be accepted from August 1, 1993. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is found to be devoid of any substance. The same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 554 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the appeal. In other words, though the appellate authority under section 55(6)(c) of the BST Act can consider the issues allied to the main issue raised in the appeal, the appellate authority cannot consider an issue which is totally unconnected to the issue raised in the appeal. 36.. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that in an appeal filed under section 55(6)(c) of the BST Act, the powers of the appellate authority are restricted to the issues raised in the appeal and, accordingly dismiss the miscellaneous application filed by the CST. 37.. Accordingly, we answer the question No. 1 in the negative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 38.. The reference application is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. Question No. 1 answered in the negative. Question No. 2 answered in the affirmative.
-
2005 (4) TMI 553 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not raise the contention of unjust enrichment. In view of the same, in the review applications we will not allow the Revenue to raise the contention of unjust enrichment in this behalf and, therefore, we have not considered the principle of unjust enrichment. 23.. In the result, the applications are partly allowed and disposed of as set out above. Rule is partly made absolute with no order as to costs. A.R. DAVE, J. - I am in agreement with the final conclusion arrived at by my brother, K.M. Mehta, J., that the tax paid along with the returns of sales tax could not have been directed to be returned with interest to the petitioner-assessee in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 1992 194 ITR 659 FB , which has been now approved by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal v. Shelly Products 2003 261 ITR 367 AIR 2003 SC 2532. Applications partly allowed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 552 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... trospectivity given to the amended provision. The Kerala Finance Bill, 2001 was published in the Kerala Gazette Volume XLVI (No. 1048 dated July 21, 2001) which contained a declaration under the Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenue Act, 1985 to the effect that all the provisions of the Bill shall have immediate effect from the date of introduction of the Bill in the Legislative Assembly. Learned single Judge is right in holding that every tax-payer is presumed to know that the tax proposals will have effect from the date they are introduced in the Legislative Assembly in view of the declaration under Act 10 of 1985. Legislature is competent to make amendment with retrospective effect. We are therefore not impressed with the contention of the counsel for the petitioners about the retrospectivity of the legislation. We therefore fully concur with the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeals and the writ petition. Writ appeals and writ petition dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 551 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by this Court in the case of Pro Agro Seeds Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2003 132 STC 226 (2002) 4 PLJR 657. In that view of the matter, that direction does not exist in the eye of law. This apart in any of the assessment orders the assessing authorities have not ever considered the said notification and it has been categorically stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the said direction of the Commissioner has not been taken into consideration and the authorities have considered the matter relying upon the statutory provisions. 28.. Thus, the assessing authorities were right in charging the rate of tax at 8 per cent with regard to the maize seeds and the maize seed is not included within the definition of the cereals under entry No. 12 of annexure 3 even a liberal meaning is given to the word cereals. 29.. In the result, there is no merit in these writ applications and the same are dismissed. BARIN GHOSH, J. - I agree. Writ applications dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 550 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act is required to be taken and not section 19 ibid. It is for the reason that such is not a case of under-assessment/escape assessment falling within the mischief of section 19(1) ibid. If the assessing officer felt that in place of purchase tax, a levy of sales tax is to be imposed on the goods in question then he wished to change the very basis of assessment order. In such case, proper action to be taken to remedy the wrong is not by taking recourse to section 19 but section 39. We, thus, concur with the view expressed by the Board and hold that notice issued under section 19(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction and is not thus, legally sustainable in law. We are supported by the authority reported in Laduram Ramniwas v. State of M.P. 1996 102 STC 240 (MP) (1994) 27 VKN 343. 11.. In view of aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred supra against the Commissioner of Sales Tax (State) and in favour of assessee/dealer. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
2005 (4) TMI 549 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the safeguards provided by Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 regarding search of any "person" would also apply to any bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc., which is being carried by him?
Held that:- As the High Court allowed the appeal on the finding that the report of the Chemical Examiner had to be excluded and that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The learned Judges of this Court, who heard the appeal earlier, have recorded a unanimous opinion that the report of the Chemical Examiner was admissible in evidence and could not be excluded. In view of the discussion made earlier, Section 50 of the Act can have no application on the facts and circumstances of the present case as opium was allegedly recovered from the bag, which was being carried by the accused. The High Court did not examine the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence on merits. Accordingly, the matter has to be remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing of the appeal.
For Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2003 the search of the attachi revealed 5 kgs. of opium. After conducting other formalities and investigation of the case, the accused was put up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. The High Court by a very cryptic judgment held that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with as the accused was not informed of his right to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. Thus the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained as it was a case of search of an attachi which was carried by the accused. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 5.10.2001 of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh consideration.
........
|
