|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 604 Records
-
2005 (5) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble and rationale method for demanding cash security under Section 8C(3-A) of the Act which should have nexus to the amount of tax which would be payable. The plea that it is not a general order, is devoid of any substance inasmuch as no particular form of issuing an order has been prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Likewise, the plea of hostile discrimination also does not hold the field as the petitioners have not been able to establish the plea of discrimination pleaded by them. Moreover, a slight difference in freight charges by railways and by private transport operator would not make any material difference in the demand of cash security which is to protect the interest of the Revenue and any surplus which remains after the assessment, is to be refunded. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in these petitions. They are dismissed with costs which we assess at ₹ 5,000/- payable by each of the petitioners individually.
-
2005 (5) TMI 634 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated 21st July, 1988, done at the business premises of the firm may be relevant for the assessment of the turnover of the firm, but is wholly irrelevant to another business which is being carried on by a partner in his individual capacity independently. A plea of alibi was also pressed and it was submitted that in the assessment year the applicant was doing business in Maharashtra. Doing of business, if any, at Maharashtra has hardly any significance in the matter. 6. In view of above discussion, I find that exclding the survey report, dated 21st July, 1988, there is no material on record to show that the applicant has carried on any business in the relevant assessment year, in view of the above discussion the order of the Tribunal confirming the assessment order cannot be sustained and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the revision is allowed. It is held that there was no taxable turnover in the relevant assessment year. No order as to costs. In favour of assessee.
-
2005 (5) TMI 633 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... able. CEGAT has noticed that the show cause notice was issued on 21st September, 1999 purporting to levy duty from March, 1994 to June, 1995. CEGAT also noticed that in 1994 itself it had been disclosed to the Department that charges for secondary packing were being recovered. CEGAT held that on these facts there was no reason why the Department did not take action within time. We are in complete agreement with the finding of CEGAT. We are unable to accept the submission that this could be said to be a case of suppression. The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 632 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... y cleared for export. The fallacy in the impugned order arises in its concept/perception of what is final product. It has been erroneously held that tobacco dust/tobacco refuse arising during the course of manufacture of cigarettes is a final product and on that basis since that final product namely tobacco dust/tobacco refuse does not discharge any duty liability cut tobacco which is input for manufacture of the cigarettes has been held to be liable to duty as the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 is not available. We are of the view that the tobacco dust/tobacco refuse cannot be treated as final product for the purpose of Notification No. 214/86. The final products are the cigarettes. Therefore the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption on cut tobacco under seizure under notification. We therefore, set aside the impugned order by which the demand has been confirmed and penalty of ₹ 50,000/-imposed, and allow the appeal. (Operative part pronounced in court)
-
2005 (5) TMI 631 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the conditions imposed by the Tribunal under the impugned order in depositing the amount as indicated therein and furnish a security as per that order and this will be done even without compelling the revenue to resort to recovery, etc. I am of the opinion that it may be appropriate to pass an order that the petitioner shall in terms of the undertaking, deposit the amount and furnish security as per the order of the Tribunal and as per the undertaking affidavit filed before this court today within four weeks from today and during such time the respondents shall not resort to recovery proceedings. However, it is for the petitioner to abide by the affidavit and undertaking given herein, failure of which will undoubtedly amount to petitioner filing affidavit without bona fide and without justification and only for the purpose of buying time. It is hoped that the petitioner will not give room for such a circumstance. Except for this observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 630 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observed that the sales tax declaration forms had become a necessary adjunct of trade without which a trader cannot carry on competitive business. We have already observed in the earlier part of our order that non-issue of the declaration forms on account of nonpayment of arrears of tax may be a pressure on the sick company to clear its tax arrears but it cannot amount to initiation of coercive proceedings for the recovery of the amount. It is only a positive act on the part of a creditor to recover the amount from a sick company that is barred by section 22(1). Moreover, it is not the object of section 22(1) of the 1985 Act to force a creditor including the Government to take steps which may enable the sick company to carry on competitive business. We, therefore, respectfully express our dissent with the view expressed in Himalaya Rubber Products Limited case 1993 88 STC 47 (Cal). In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 629 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of interpretation of entries of a taxing notification it is difficult to agree with the view of the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal is neither in conformity with the dictionary meaning of the word forest nor as it is understood in common parlance. It is also settled that the words of taxing statutes if are ambiguous, the theory of intention of Legislature cannot be invoked into to fasten a tax liability. In view of the above discussion the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is not right in holding that the sale of eucalyptus trees is liable to be taxed, at the hands of the applicant, under the aforesaid notification. By no stretch of imagination, it is possible to hold that the dealer was private owner of forest. In the result the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the applicant is not liable to pay any sales tax on the sale of the eucalyptus trees with costs of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only).
-
2005 (5) TMI 628 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he case, and if the case requires any kind of evidence, etc., the writ court may not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at all. In the facts and circumstances, I find that against the best judgment or against the order passed by the assessing authority, the dealer or a person aggrieved has to avail the remedy available in the Act . This court cannot entertain the present writ petition to exercise its power under article 226 of the Constitution as an appellate authority to appreciate facts, quantum and resolve disputed question of facts and to make reappraisal of entries of account books and return and test the validity of the assessment order. In these circumstances, this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The question in present writ petition is dealt with accordingly. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any passed earlier, stands vacated after dismissal of the present writ petition.
-
2005 (5) TMI 627 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... long with the penalty should have been due before the assessee could be entitled to claim waiver cannot be accepted in the light of the budget speech made by the Deputy Chief Minister and the circular issued by the Department. The construction sought to be placed on the circular by the Department would lead to absurd results. For instance, a dealer who has not paid his taxes and penalty would be entitled to claim the benefit of waiver, but another dealer who has paid the tax before June 30, 1999 but has not paid the penalty would be deprived of that benefit. Such a construction is neither warranted from the language of the circular nor is the same permissible and in our opinion would lead to absurd results. In this view of the matter the question posed in the earlier part of the judgment is answered in the affirmative and it is held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to claim the waiver of the penalty amount. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 626 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the account books and had made his best judgment assessment order is a correct view and this court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution cannot go to test the disputed questions of fact and analyse the different aspects including the quantum of turnover, taxable turnover, rate of tax on the matter towards enhancement of the turnover and imposition of tax as an appellate authority since the Tribunal under section 22(2) of the Act of 1976 is the final appellate authority and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. AIR 1952 SC 192, this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction as an appellate authority to test the validity of the impugned order dated November 25, 1995. In view of the above discussion, this court is not inclined to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly these three writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 625 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se 1997 107 STC 571, applies to section 5A(1)(c) of the KGST Act also and therefore, petitioner is liable to pay tax on purchase of cashew kernels from unregistered dealers in Kerala which are sold to exporters in and out of Kerala on which no tax is payable under section 5(3) of the CST Act. The question abovereferred is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The only other question which arises in St. Rev. No. 151 of 2004 pertains to the addition of turnover of Rs. 2 lakhs sustained by the Tribunal. We find the accounts are rejected for valid reasons and the addition by the officer is reduced at two levels by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. Having regard to the volume of business, the addition sustained by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. We, therefore, decide the question raised on addition also against the assessee. In the result, the sales tax revision cases filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 624 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cidative exposition of the law regarding interpretation of statutes and the unequivocal and determinate language of section 37(1) of the Act, I am of the considered view that the impugned rder of assessment/rectification having admittedly breached the time-limit prescribed thereby, cannot be sustained in law and on facts. The notice dated June 4, 1997 initiating the process of such rectification though within the time-limit sanctioned cannot save the order in the teeth of clear legislative precept conveyed by the contents of the said provision of the Act. The lower appellate forums, in my view proceeded in the wrong legal perspective and consequently the orders passed in the appeal cannot be sustained as well. The upshot of the above discussion, therefore, is that the impugned order of assessment/rectification dated September 29, 1999 and the orders passed in the statutory appeals are hereby set aside and quashed. The petition is allowed. There would be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (5) TMI 623 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld that the petitioner cannot be compensated with interest from the date of service of first demand notice as claimed. The Tribunal observed that since it is a case of apparent mistake on the face of the record, it should be corrected by reviewing the order and adjusting the amount by the authorised officer. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, we fail to appreciate the grievance as ventilated on behalf of the petitioner and, as such, the present application under article 226 being W.P.T.T. No. 13 of 2004 be dismissed on contest. The impugned order stands affirmed. No order as to costs. The order passed by the learned Tribunal be given effect to within a period of four weeks from this date. Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties after due compliance with the legal formalities. ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. - I agree. Application dismissed. Since reported in 2006 144 STC 199 App .
-
2005 (5) TMI 622 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ustified on the available statutory provisions, but on the other hand, definitely is in violation of the right of the petitioner to carry on its trade or business. This is a clear instance of misuse of statutory power by the respondents. 17.. In the result, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the endorsements bearing No. CTO/STCP/KANNUR/81/ MS/04-05 (copy at annexure E) and No. CTO/STCP/KANNUR/82/MS/ 04-05 both dated January 14, 2005 (copy at annexure F) are hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The respondents are directed to release forthwith the vehicles and its goods. 18.. However, respondents are at liberty to take any other action for any other violation if noticed, as contemplated under the law and under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Respondents to pay Rs. 10,000 towards cost to the petitioner. Cost may be recovered by the State in equal measure personally from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 621 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any confusion that in case of any variation in description, quantity, weight or value of the goods in any consignment, there is right to seize the goods in question and then, take follow up action in accordance with law. 13.. The decision as referred to by the learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty does not lead us to hold anything to the contrary in this regard. 14.. Our attention was also drawn to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. P.T. Enterprises reported in 2000 117 STC 315 (SC). In fact if there is any incorrect statement or declaration as to the value of the goods with reference to the market value, the authority concerned has the power to take up necessary action in terms of the Sales Tax Act. 15.. After due consideration of all relevant facts and materials we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed on contest. 16.. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 620 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e manner so as to advance the objective of the provision. We find that the object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industry in the State. If the test laid down in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. case 1992 196 ITR 188 (SC) is applied, there is no doubt whatever that the exemption granted to the respondent from August 9, 1985 when it fulfilled all the prescribed conditions will not cease to operate just because the capital investment exceeded the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the respondent becoming the owner of land and building to which the unit was shifted. If the construction sought to be placed by the appellant is accepted, the very purpose and object of the grant of exemption will be defeated. 13.. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Petitions allowed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 619 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... December 10, 1999. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the department cannot be allowed to be canvassed in these revisions. 21.. For reasons stated above, T.T.R. Nos. 1071 and 1072 of 1997 for the assessment years 1992-93 U.P. and 1992-93 Central deserve to be partly allowed and T.T.R. Nos. 682 of 1999 and 702 of 1999 for the assessment year 1995-96 U.P. and Central respectively and T.T.R. Nos. 703 and 704 of 1999 for assessment year 1994-95 Central and U.P. respectively deserve to be dismissed. 22.. Consequently, T.T.R. Nos. 1071 and 1072 of 1997 are partly allowed and the orders of the Tribunal so far as it relates to grant of benefit of exemption from January 4, 1993 to March 31, 1993 is set aside and that of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in this respect is restored. T.T.R. Nos. 682, 702, 703 and 704 of 1999 are hereby dismissed. 23.. No order as to costs. T.T.R. Nos. 1071 and 1072 of 1997 partly allowed. T.T.R. Nos. 682, 702, 703 and 704 of 1999 dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 618 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act, unless the sale transactions are in favour of a registered dealer. No documentary evidence like bills, receipts of goods supported by books of accounts were produced by the dealer before the assessing officer. They even failed to furnish confirmation from any of the alleged dealers to whom the photographic goods were sold. When the department confronted the dealers with a specific averment that the alleged registered dealers are non-existent or do not exist in the records of the circle from where such forms are alleged to have been issued, the onus on the assessee-dealer is heavier. Having failed to discharge this obligation, the petitioner cannot be permitted to avoid the liability arising from the impugned orders. 8.. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that no questions of law arise for consideration from the order impugned in the present petition. The same is dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 617 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... when demanded, inevitably resulted in seizure of the said vehicles and initiation of penalty proceeding. 11.. The learned Tribunal seems to be perfectly justified in passing the impugned order, which, in our view, does not suffer from any infirmity justifying any interference. 12.. It may be mentioned that the Tribunal while disposing of the matter gave the liberty to the petitioners to pray for reduction in the amount of penalty. No further grievance has been ventilated before us in this context. 13.. Accordingly, the present application being W.P.T.T. No. 12 of 2004 be dismissed on contest. Impugned order dated September 21, 2004 passed by the Tribunal in R.N. 385 of 2004 stands affirmed. In the nature and background of this case, there is no order as to costs. 14.. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis, of course, after due compliance with the necessary formalities. 15.. ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. - I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
2005 (5) TMI 616 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... parties and their rights are permitted to be settled in furtherance thereto, it cannot be said that now in the present proceedings, this Court could disburse the said decision on a plea of review which itself is founded on a vague show cause and where, even the grounds on which review was sought, were not stated or put to the assessee. The respondents had given an undertaking before the court that they would refund the amount. Of course, such a direction would have been subject to the order passed in furtherance to the notice to show cause for review but of the said notice itself and the order passed thereupon is violative of principles of natural justice and is not within the ambit and scope of provisions of section 48 of the Act, none of them can stand the scrutiny of law. 10.. For the reasons aforestated, we find merit in this petition. We allow the same, quash the demand and order dated February 24, 1983 leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
