|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 632 Records
-
2006 (1) TMI 593 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court has gravely erred in law in holding that the acquittal of the respondent herein by the Court of C.J.M., Chennai ought to have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, while dismissing the respondent from service vide order dated 28.11.1991?
Whether the High Court has not gravely erred in law by ignoring to appreciate that the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from service was the most appropriate punishment in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, based on independent appreciation of evidence on record as well as the categorical findings recorded by the enquiry officer in perfect accordance with the requirements of the rules applicable to the disciplinary proceedings in the appellant-Corporation?
Whether the High Court has not gravely erred in law vitiating thereby the ends of justice by erroneously interfering with the punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority and later confirmed by the appellate authority in the teeth of a plethora of judicial pronouncements of this Court defining and delimiting the scope of interference by the High Court with the punishment awarded to a guilty employee by disciplinary authority?
Whether the High Court has gravely erred in interfering with the punishment awarded to the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry guilty of misappropriation and other heinous malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, an institution primarily concerned with distribution of the essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu?
-
2006 (1) TMI 592 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... venues plea that the agreement between the refinery and oil companies was for mutual interest of each other and price at which goods were cleared was not true transaction value. In fact the agreement was entered into on a direction from the Government of India to reduce transportation cost in public interest.
-
2006 (1) TMI 591 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion section 12(3)(a) is extracted below 12(3). In addition to the tax assessed under sub-section (1) or (2) the assessing authority shall, in the same order of assessment passed under sub-section (1) or (2) or by a separate order, direct the dealer to pay by way of penalty, a sum - (a) which shall be, in the case of failure to submit return, one hundred and fifty per cent of the tax assessed on final assessment. Though right from the pre-assessment notice till the imposition of penalty and the assessment order, the authority has quoted the penal provision under section 12(3)(b), the fact remains that the penalty can be levied only under section 12(3)(a) as the petitioner has not filed any returns. It is wellsettled principle of law that mere quoting of wrong provision would not vitiate the proceedings. Hence we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order. The petition therefore deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2006 (1) TMI 590 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... as well as in the Rules framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. All these put emphasis on recording of reasons as the same is in tune with natural justice. In view of the same we find that seizure in this case has not been made on valid, cogent and convincing ground. The ground that has been given is absolutely vague and untenable in the eye of law. We, therefore, cannot sustain the seizure. ORDERED that the application be and the same is allowed. The order of seizure cannot be sustained and is therefore, quashed. The resultant notice is also quashed. Bank guarantee furnished be released. There will be no order as to costs. B.K. MAJUMDAR (Technical Member). - I agree. Judgment is ready and delivered in open court and kept in separate sheets along with the record of this case. The learned State Representative prays for stay of the order for two months. The other side is absent. Considered. We do not find any reason to stay the order and the prayer stands rejected.
-
2006 (1) TMI 589 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the State 39 s contention in this case would ultimately result in driving up the price of these goods to the consumer. It would become another sales tax in effect. In the circumstances, we are inclined to - indeed we have no option but to - affirm the decision of the Karnataka High Court on the meaning of the words 39 sale therein 39 in section 3 of the Karnataka Act . . . For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the assessee was liable to entry tax on the coal brought into local area only for the purpose of weighment at the weighbridge, if the said coal was sent out of the said local area for use or consumption outside such local areas. The question as to whether the entry tax, if already paid by the assessee on such sale of coal, is to be refunded to the assessee or not is left open to be decided in accordance with law.
-
2006 (1) TMI 588 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of 1993 is not to govern such transactions of sale, surely and certainly, the actions of the N.F. Railways in seeking to deduct taxes at source under section 27 of the Act of 1993 will be equally unauthorised in law. In view of the foregoing discussions and the conclusions reached on the basis thereof, this court is of the view that all the writ petitions under consideration ought to be allowed which I hereby do. The actions of the N.F. Railways in deducting or proposing to deduct tax at source is declared to be unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the Act of 1993. Consequently, the actions of the N. F. Railways in deducting tax at source from the bills of the petitioners or any such proposed action is being interfered, with the further direction for refund of tax where the same has been deducted from the bills of the petitioners, by following the provisions laid down in the Act of 1993. All the writ petitions are allowed in the light of the above directions.
-
2006 (1) TMI 587 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onal authority and also the direction issued in the impugned order should be set aside on the ground that the said observation would seriously prejudice the interest of the assessee and takes away the discretion conferred on the assessing authority? In our view, it is not necessary to set aside the observations made in the course of the order impugned and the directions given. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if an observation is made clarifying that assessing authority, while reconsidering the matter, should not in any manner be influenced by the observations made by the revisional authority in the course of the order and it is required to take an independent decision in the matter in exercise of the power conferred on it under section 12A or under section 12 of the Act. Accordingly it is ordered. Subject to the observations made above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
-
2006 (1) TMI 586 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ther held that the sugar falling within the scope of subheadings of the Central Excise Tariff Act and referred to in item (iii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 would be declared goods, irrespective of the place of their manufacture. The test is not where the goods were manufactured, but whether the goods answer the description in the sub-headings. If the description fits in, such goods become declared goods . The observation made by the Division Bench in respect of sugar is equally applicable in respect of the goods textile, which is the subjectmatter of the present case and as such it can only be considered as declared goods and can be taxed only at the maximum rate of four per cent as provided under section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In view of the foregoing reasoning, we find no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Special Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.
-
2006 (1) TMI 585 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g physical delivery which amount to a local sale by the branch to Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., the contention of the State was that there was no branch at all by the date of either agreement or by the date the goods arrived at the destination points in Bihar. In view of these findings of fact, the revision is misplaced. The assessee/petitioner relied on two judgments, one from Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 128 STC 1 2002 35 APSTJ 45. This was admittedly a case where the transfer had been made to branch office. Similarly, the case in Indian Duplicators Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1984 57 STC 263 (Mad) is also with respect to sale by a branch office. On facts, the authorities below including the Tribunal found that there was no branch office in Patna when the goods were moved and the goods were moved to Patna in pursuant of agreement. Therefore the revision is misplaced and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2006 (1) TMI 584 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ere in the instant case, against the affidavit of the respondents about the nature of Hajmola Candy, which is taken by the young and old as a confectionary without any doctor 39 s prescription, it was incumbent on the petitionercompany to produce evidence that Hajmola Candy is prescribed by the ayurvedic doctors for patients suffering from some particular disease and such failure on the part of the petitioner-company goes to show that in popular parlance, it is not acknowledged as a medicine but as a confectionary. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. The judgment is ready and delivered in open court and kept in separate sheets along with the records of this case. The prayer for stay is made by the learned advocate for the petitioner which prayer is opposed vehemently by the learned State Representative. Considered. We find that no order of stay is required. The prayer is, as such, rejected. P.K. GANGULY (Judicial Member). - I agree.
-
2006 (1) TMI 583 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alcoholic beverages. Drinks often consumed would include water, juice, soft drinks, sports drinks, dairy drinks, alcoholic beverages, cocktails, mixed drinks, hot beverages including coffee, tea, hot chocolate, etc. Therefore, alcoholic beverages are also drinks not only in the commercial parlance but also in common parlance. Therefore, in our view, drinks that finds a place in the implementing notification dated December 30, 1993 would include not only non-alcoholic beverages but also alcoholic beverages . In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the following ORDER I. Sales tax appeal is allowed. II. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority in No. ZAC-IBCD-3 SMR-11 03-04, dated October 22, 2003 is set aside. III. The impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority in Appeal Nos. 112 and 113 of 2002-03 for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, dated March 4, 2003 are restored. Ordered accordingly.
-
2006 (1) TMI 582 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n where the commodity is the same in the eyes of the persons dealing in it, the State Legislature may make a classification determining liability to sales tax. This question for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act, has to be determined on the basis of what is commonly known or recognised in commercial parlance . Therefore, in our view, for deciding the issue raised in this revision petition, reference to entry No. 17 of Part 39 S 39 of the Second Schedule to the KST Act is wholly irrelevant. In view of our above discussions, the revision petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the following ORDER - I. Sales tax revision petition is allowed. II. The impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S. T. A. Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2000, dated November 30, 2002 is set aside. III. The impugned order passed by the first appellate authority in Appeal Nos. CST.AP.4 and 19/2000-01, dated August 31, 2000 is restored. IV. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2006 (1) TMI 581 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld that white cement is not a cement and therefore, it would not fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the authority was not justified in holding that white cement is a cement and it would fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act read with the notification issued by the State Government dated March 30, 2002. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant requires to be allowed and the order passed by the authority requires to be set aside and a proper declaration to the effect that the white cement is not a cement requires to be made. Accordingly, the following ORDER - (i) The sales tax appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority in Case No. AR. CLR. CR. 73/04-05, dated August 27, 2004 is set aside. (iii) It is declared that white cement is not a cement and it would not fall under entry 9 of the First Schedule to the Act read with notification dated March 30, 2002. Ordered accordingly.
-
2006 (1) TMI 580 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and files, floppies of the plaintiff, which are taken away by them are duly returned to the plaintiff. The three I. As, in so far as the above second relief is concerned, are allowed. In other respects the impugned orders stand confirmed. The lower court is directed to dispose of the suits within four months from the date of filing of written statement. J. Chelameswar J. - After the judgment is pronounced, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Prakash Reddy, submitted that in view of the decision, the proceedings for reopening of the assessments would now continue, and there is need for him to reply the show cause notice issued and therefore, some reasonable time be fixed to enable the respondents to reply the show cause notice. Heard the learned Advocate-General. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant five weeks time to the respondents, to offer whatever explanation they wish to the show cause notice already issued, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2006 (1) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to F , slips and declarations and those objections were not considered at all by the respondent in the impugned assessment order. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the decision referred to above, a writ court, notwithstanding the alternative remedy available by way of appeal in a sales tax case, can exercise its jurisdiction in an appropriate case to do substantive justice. I am of the view that the present one is an appropriate case for exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to do substantive justice. In that view of the matter, the impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order is set aside and the matter is remitted back and the respondent is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner on merits and pass order in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, W. P. M. P. No. 42681 of 2005 is closed.
-
2006 (1) TMI 578 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... posed a penalty without giving a specific finding about the existence of the conditions requisite for the exercise of the powers under section 29(6) and (8) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. They appear to have merely proceeded on the surmises and conjectures that the petitioner has acted in connivance with the transporter. Before imposing a penalty, the authorities ought to have arrived at a finding about the existence of the ingredients of section 29(6) of the said Act. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders contained in annexures P6 and P8 are quashed. The authorities are directed to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the pre-requisites essential for the exercise of powers under the said provisions. It is, however, made clear that the authorities will be within the rights to proceed against the consignor or the transporter for breach of any of the provisions of law, which was in force at the relevant time. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (1) TMI 577 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the dealer was issued recognition certificate for the manufacturing of cast iron castings. It has also held that pig iron, which was purchased against form III-B was also used in the manufacturing of cast iron castings. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal which could not be assailed by the learned Standing Counsel, declaration form issued by the dealer cannot be said to be false or wrong. Merely because the item, which is cast iron castings, is claimed to be agricultural implement and the exemption has been allowed, it cannot be said that the goods have been manufactured in violation of the recognition certificate and declaration certificate issued for making the purchases of pig iron, used in the manufacturing of product for which recognition certificate was issued, cannot be said to be false or wrong. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (1) TMI 576 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quarrel over the quantum or for the benefit granted. In view of the aforesaid premises the inevitable result is quashment of annexure P7 passed by the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, it is so directed. As a natural corollary the further direction to the respondent No. 1 would be to grant the requisite certificate to the petitioner under the Scheme and it is so ordered. In W. P. No. 3188 of 2002 a similar prayer has been made except the fact it relates to the year 1996-97 in respect of which a demand of Rs. 2,63,080 was created and on settlement a figure was arrived at Rs. 78,924 which was deposited by the assessee. As the grounds raised in the petition as well as in the return are same the reasons ascribed above would apply to the said case and accordingly, the impugned order contained in annexure P7 stands quashed. All other directions issued earlier would squarely apply to this writ petition. Consequently both the writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs.
-
2006 (1) TMI 575 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Act, the rules made and the notification issued thereunder. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the registering authority may require an applicant for registration, to furnish guarantees or surety for proper realisation of tax and other dues for a year, as estimated by the assessee. Our attention is also drawn to form D, which, under clause 19, lays down 19. The estimated total turnover for the year in which application is submitted. So, the effect of section 12(7), rule 28(8) and clause 19 in form D makes it clear that if a surety is given by a person on behalf of an assessee, that surety will remain in force against tax payable for a year, as estimated by the assessee. This view has already been taken by this Court earlier in Writ Petition No. 17017 of 2002 Gullapudi Someswara Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2007 6 VST 361 . Following the same judgment, we allow these writ petitions and quash the impugned orders. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (1) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the alternate method of taxation, opted to be governed by it, the contractor cannot be heard to question the validity of the relevant sub-section or the rules. We are of the view, assessee has made the option and that is being enjoyed by the assessee for the last few years. Having gained the advantage and having made the option which was permitted by the department, we are of the view, assessee cannot wriggle out of the exercise of the option and he is estopped from doing so since the option has already been accepted and acted upon by the department. On receipt of the demand notice the assessee had, on October 16, 2002, withdrawn the compounding application, which in our view is not permissible. In such circumstances, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel and we therefore hold that the assessee is bound to pay tax as demanded by exhibit P2 demand notice dated May 2, 2002. Writ appeal therefore lacks merits and the same would stand dismissed.
........
|
