|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 652 Records
-
2006 (8) TMI 557 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the First Schedule deal with Indian made and foreign made foreign liquor and by virtue of the exclusion of dealers in such liquor from the scope of exemption, the exemption is not available to bar attached hotels, which are admittedly selling liquor falling under entries 53 and 54 of the First Schedule. In other words, a class of dealers entitled to exemption are hotels and restaurants other than bar attached hotels. We do not think the notification admits of any other meaning. Therefore, the interpretation placed on the notification contrary to this finding is erroneous. We therefore reverse the order of the Tribunal and hold that bar attached hotels and restaurants are not entitled to exemption under S.R.O. No. 363/92 on purchase turnover of goods consumed in the preparation of cooked food for sale in such hotels or restaurants, where liquor is also sold. Accordingly, sales tax revision case is allowed by vacating the order of the Tribunal and restoring the assessment.
-
2006 (8) TMI 556 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nvolved. Another decision relied on by petitioner is in State of Tamil Nadu v. Annai Industries 1994 94 STC 393 (Mad), wherein the court has held that recovery of polythene from old and waste polythene bags is not manufacture. Following these decisions, we are of the view that if the petitioner has purchased scrap sinkers and similar items melted and made into ingots, there cannot be any liability for purchase tax under section 5A. Since the issue is raised first time before this court, while confirming the order of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above, we direct the officer to conduct an inspection in the factory of petitioner, verify the accounts and grant exemption from purchase tax under section 5A on the purchase of the items referred above, to the actual quantity of pure scrap of lead purchased and melted into ingot and limit the levy under section 5A only in respect of battery and similar other scrap items, where recovery involves elimination of other materials.
-
2006 (8) TMI 555 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... form is visualised in rule 12(3) of the CST (R and T) Rules which requires issuance of duplicate C form after marking the same in red ink and after executing bond and with permission of the assessing officer. Therefore, we hold that if original of the C form is lost, the concessional rate of tax cannot be granted based on duplicate part and the party can get the relief only by obtaining and producing duplicate C form after observing the procedure contemplated under rule 12(3) of the CST (R and T) Rules. We also feel that if the concessional rate is granted based on duplicate, there is every chance of misuse of duplicate for getting concessional rate for transaction different form the one for which concession is claimed and granted based on original of the same C form. In the circumstances, we allow the tax revision case by vacating the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessment at a higher rate on so much of the turnover not covered by original part of the C form.
-
2006 (8) TMI 554 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le, namely dressed and tanned hides and skins. Export orders were admittedly for specific dimensions of dressed tanned skin. We cannot even conceive the possibility of petitioner co-relating export orders with the purchase of raw skin and hides of animals in the market depending on availability. This court in the unreported decision above referred, has referred the decision of the Supreme Court, but still declined exemption holding that the item purchased is not a commodity for export by the petitioner. It is worthwhile to note that in the decision in K.K.S. Khader Mohideen v. State of Kerala 2003 130 STC 61 (Ker) 2000 8 KTR 349 (Ker), this court has considered the very same issue of exemption under section 5(3) in the context of sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act and held that purchase of raw hides and skins for tanning and export of products do not qualify for exemption. In the circumstances and following the above two decisions, we dismiss all the sales tax revision cases.
-
2006 (8) TMI 553 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the time-limit provided therein. In fact, we feel the assessing officer could have got this mistake corrected through the appellate authority who has authority to enhance the assessment in the course of an appeal or by rectification of his order by referring the matter to him or through the Deputy Commissioner invoking his suo motu powers of revision under section 35 of the Act. The last issue is whether the non-filing of objection by the petitioner will confer jurisdiction on the officer to exercise powers under section 19(1) or section 43(1) beyond period of limitation. We feel as and when limitation is over, the officer ceases to have jurisdiction to revise the assessment and therefore, even if the petitioner does not file reply to proposal, the officer does not get jurisdiction to revise the assessment beyond time-limit. We, therefore, allow the revision vacating the order of the Tribunal and cancelling the revised assessment in regard to rate of tax on industrial gases.
-
2006 (8) TMI 552 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not wheat and they are different cereals. In the instant case even if we accept that Robinson barley is derived from barley, they cannot be treated as the same goods and cannot fall under the classification of barley under section 14(i)(x) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue, Robinson barley cannot be treated as a declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore, considering the matter from all its angle and also considering the various judgments stated above, this court does not discern any error in the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is upheld and this court finds that Robinson barley is not the same as barley in the form of cereals and Robinson barley cannot be taxed at the first point of sale at the rate of four per cent. Both the revision petitions, therefore fail and are dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. I. Mohanty J. - I agree.
-
2006 (8) TMI 551 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... inappropriate manner in which the petitioner-company dealt with this matter. We have already held that this case does not come strictly under section 77 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the imposition of penalty but the kind of activities as pointed out hereinabove are required to be discouraged and disapproved. In the facts and circumstances, we accept the petitioner 39 s submission that the company will pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 to the Revenue as a measure of deterrence or discouragement. Accordingly, we dispose of this application by setting aside the impugned order of penalty and directing the petitioner-company to pay Rs. 75,000 as offered by the petitioner itself. The concerned respondents are directed to release the disputed goods from seizure within 24 hours of production of the challan showing payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000. No order as to costs. R. K. DUTTA CHOUDHURI (Judicial Member). - I agree. DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTY (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2006 (8) TMI 550 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e same before the Sales Tax Officer, Keonjhar Circle, who on receipt of the same along with the revised returns that may be filed by the petitioner as a consequence of revision of the eligibility certificate, shall pass appropriate order of assessment and direct refund of excess tax deposited on ascertainment of the assertion of the petitioner that it has not collected sales tax from the purchasers but had paid the same from its own resource, within a period of two months from the date of production of the revised eligibility certificate . 4.. Opposite party No. 1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner-company 39 s application for grant of capital investment subsidy in terms of the direction contained herein and release the capital investment subsidy as is due to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. This writ application is allowed but in the circumstances as noted hereinabove, without costs. A. K. Ganguly J. - I agree.
-
2006 (8) TMI 549 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Entry tax on "imported coal" from outside the country - Notification No. S.O. 88 issued by the State of Jharkhand - two per cent entry tax has been sought for to be levied - Validity of section 3 Of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Act, 1993 - whether the entry tax under the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as adopted and modified by the Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for consumption, Use or Sale Thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, satisfies the test of compensatory tax so as to come within the protection under article 304(b) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- No basis has been shown to levy entry tax in the nature of compensatory tax to find out quantifiable and measurable benefits. Nothing has been indicated either in the "Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993", adopted by the State of Jharkhand, or in the "Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Jharkhand Ordinance 2 of 2002)" showing any quantifiable data or a benefit which is measurable.
Thus, in our considered view the entry tax levied under the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand and amended by Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Jharkhand Ordinance 2 of 2002), is, thus, not based on the principle of equivalence and is not compensatory in nature.
From the judgment, rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Chamber of Commerce [1996 (2) TMI 430 - SUPREME COURT], though it will be evident that the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 was assented to by the President and the said entry tax was levied in public interest, there is nothing on the record to suggest that Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Jharkhand Ordinance 2 of 2002), so far it relates to further restriction on certain goods, as introduced by the amended Schedule, had prior sanction of the President, as required under proviso to article 304(b), nor there is anything on the record to suggest that while amending the Schedule, assent of the President was obtained by the respondents, as contemplated by article 255 of the Constitution of India.
The respondents having failed to show that the entry tax, imposed by Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand and amended by the Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Jharkhand Ordinance 2 of 2002), constitutes reasonable restriction, we are of the view that the entry tax imposed by the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1993, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand and amended by the Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Jharkhand Ordinance 2 of 2002), is also not saved by the provisions, contained in article 304(b) of the Constitution of India.
Thus, we hold that the provisions of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated December 15, 2000 and as amended vide Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Jharkhand Ordinance 2 of 2002) do not satisfy the requirement under article 301 read with article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and section 3 of the said Act is ultra vires.
It is, thus, also held that the State-respondent cannot enforce the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Notification No. S. O. 88 dated March 23, 2002, issued under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and memo dated July 1, 2004, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-cum Special Secretary, Jharkhand, Ranchi, are held unsustainable and are, therefore, quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated above.
-
2006 (8) TMI 548 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... open for decision in some other case, if so required. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the findings, as recorded above, we hold that the State-respondent cannot enforce the provisions of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand and amended vide Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, nor can it enforce any order or direction, issued in terms with the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1993, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand and amended vide Jharkhand Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale thereof (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. All the writ petitions are, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. D. K. SINHA J. - I agree.
-
2006 (8) TMI 547 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aration was given in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 1194. The form of declaration attached to G. O. Ms. No. 1194 lays down that the name and address of the selling dealer from whom the mini steel plant or the mini-steel plant-cum-reroller purchased the scrap. It has to give particulars like invoice number and date, description of the scrap, quantity set out in the bill and amounts set out in the bill. G. O. Ms. No. 774 would not apply at all because its application depends on the fact that the tax had been paid by the dealer, who had manufactured the finished goods. We do not agree with the Tribunal 39 s reasoning that whether there was a declaration or no declaration, the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 1194 would be available. Since there was no factual basis laid down that tax had been paid by the first dealer when the scrap was purchased, the assessee could not claim any benefits under G. O. Ms. No. 774. For these reasons, we allow the revisions and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
-
2006 (8) TMI 546 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng dealer has dealt with the goods. In the light of the clear pronouncement of this court as well as the Supreme Court, we think that the claim made by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition is bound to succeed and the order of the respondent/ Deputy Commercial Tax Officer is liable to be quashed. In view of the above, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 2 of 2006 in W.P. No. 22311 of 2006. Further, in view of the binding precedents of this court and the Supreme Court, the writ petition stands allowed and the order of the respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated January 19, 2006 stands quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner/appellant in the light of this judgment and also in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in W.A. No. 994 of 2006 and M.P. No. 2 of 2006 in W.P. No. 22311 of 2006 shall stand closed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 545 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed of directing the first respondent to examine the issue afresh in the light of the circular of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes referred to earlier No. CCT 39 s Ref. A1(2)/2825/96 dated January 2, 1997 . It is made clear that if the petitioner produces a copy of the certificate evidencing deduction of amount, as contemplated under section 5H of the Act, issued by the contractee (in this case stated to be the Government of Andhra Pradesh) in favour of either of the abovementioned two companies, the amount so deducted shall be given credit to, while assessing the tax liability of the petitioner, insofar as it pertains to the work, which is sub-contracted to the petitioner in respect of the abovementioned two companies and where the deduction is referable to such sub-contract. If the petitioner has not furnished copies of such certificates, he shall produce the same within a period of four weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 544 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ir making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression 39 sufficient cause 39 should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in a justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day 39 s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. Considering the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court, we do not find any illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the State. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 543 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... raw materials, it was a conscious step to live up to the genuine societal expectations by ushering in an era of economic and industrial development in the State. I see no compelling or cogent reasons, having regard to the basal principles of governmental functioning in a democracy governed by the rule of law, to take a different view. The assertion that the writ petition lacks in basic facts to sustain the plea of promissory estoppel is not convincing in absence of any repudiation of the available materials to the said effect. In the above premise, the petition succeeds. The Amended Scheme 1999 to the extent it is irreconcilable with the Industrial Policy of 1991, is declared unconstitutional and non est in law. As a corollary, the respondents are restrained from realising sales tax from the petitioner-company for the period for which it was entitled to the exemption under the Industrial Policy of 1991 and the Scheme of 1995. The parties, however, would bear their own costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 542 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... above, and since the notification does not admit any other meaning, the order of the Tribunal holding that the petitioner is entitled to exemption for sale of cooked food to air companies for service in aircrafts is absolutely incorrect. Even though counsel for respondent relied on Financial Act of 2004 whereunder specific entry is brought under item 46A to the First Schedule to the KGST Act providing for tax at eight per cent on sale of cooked food and beverages to air line services, we do not think the said provision goes to show that prior to the introduction of specific rate in the First Schedule entitles the commodity for exemption when sold by a dealer to air companies. If a commodity is not exempt and is not specifically covered by any entry in the Schedule, then the rate of tax provided under the residuary entry in the First Schedule applies. In this view of the matter, we allow the S.T.Rev. cases by reversing the order of the Tribunal and restoring the assessments.
-
2006 (8) TMI 541 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not accepted, as in the assessment year of 1984-85, the dealer was required to have recognition certificate in his name for making the purchases of rice polish. In the circumstances, the liability to pay tax cannot be said to be admitted liability on the part of the dealer. In the similar circumstances in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Damodar Das, Kalyan Das 1996 UPTC 589, the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that for the mere reason that the exemption claimed by the dealer was refused to him would not make the amount of tax to be an admitted liability. And in such cases, interest under section 8(1) of the aforesaid Act, cannot be levied. For the reasons, as discussed above, this court does not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in taking the view that the interest under section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was not payable on the tax imposed by the assessing authority, as the same was not the admitted liability. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
-
2006 (8) TMI 540 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 3 and as such so far the State is concerned, it has received its due. Moreover, there was no privity of contract in-between respondent No. 3 and the writ petitioner and there was no transfer of property involved in the sub-contract awarded to the writ petitioner by the respondent No. 3. As regards the transfer of property in goods in-between respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, the observations of this court (D. B.) in the case of Allied Traders v. State of Assam 2002 1 GLT 482 (1), are relevant. 1. Reported as Arunodoi Constructions Co, (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam 2002 127 STC 561 (Gauhati). In view of above, we find that respondent No. 3 is not entitled to deduct the tax at source from the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the writ petition is closed in terms of the interim direction given on March 23, 2001. It is submitted by Dr. Saraf that the amount which is kept by respondent No. 3 may be directed to be released. We ordered accordingly.
-
2006 (8) TMI 539 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the agreement further states, NMDC has agreed that the sales of sponge iron by NMDC to the user will be on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon and to be finalised in consultation with the association and for such purpose a separate agreement each individual user will have to be entered into between NMDC and the said user. Reading the agreement as a whole, it creates an impression that the conditions of sale of sponge iron to various members of association had to be decided after the import. Going by the judgment of the Supreme Court and also the mandate of section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, we are of the view that no substantial questions of law are involved in these revisions. We are also of the view that the Tribunal has not decided the matters erroneously. On facts, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the sales were not sales in the course of import. For these reasons, these revision cases have to fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 538 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the determination of an accurate amount of tax payable by him in accordance with law, is affected, in the sense the second respondent rejected to examine the claim of the petitioner that it was wrongly taxed at a higher amount than what is legally due from it. The fact that the second respondent chose to describe his decision as an endorsement, in our view, does not make any difference for its appealability. It is the quality and character of the decision that determine the appealability of the order, but not the nomenclature given to it. In substance, the first respondent, in our view, has clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits.
............
|
