|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 731 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 890 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, he wants to go before the Tribunal either for clarification or for rectification. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty keeping all contentions on open.
-
2009 (11) TMI 889 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Land Acquisition Proceedings - Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company - the third respondent (The City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ("CIDCO") added as an opponent to the land acquisition reference u/s 18 - Third respondent (CIDCO) made application contending that the said respondent was the beneficiary of the acquisition and on the basis of an agreement made by the said respondent with the government of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the said respondent -
HELD THAT:- A person can be said to be a person interested provided that he is the person claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of acquisition. Thus, the person who claims to be entitled to compensation or a share in the compensation can only be a person who can be said to be claiming interest in the compensation. Here the CIDCO is not claiming interest in the compensation. In fact, the CIDCO has no concern with the payment of compensation. Therefore, the CIDCO cannot claim right of audience on the ground that it is a "person interested".
Only possible provision under which the CIDCO could have claimed is Section 50 of the said Act of 1894 which reads thus Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company- (1)Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of any incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company.
In any proceeding held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation - Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under section 18.
In the present case, admittedly, land is not being acquired at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by the CIDCO. As held earlier, the acquisition cannot be said to be on behalf of CIDCO or for benefit of CIDCO in as much as while developing the site of New Bombay, the CIDCO is acting as an agent of the State Government. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 50 will have no application in the present case.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal and factual position , now a reference will have to be made to the impugned order. The only ground on which the CIDCO is ordered to be impleaded is that the CIDCO is a local authority, and therefore, it is a proper party to the reference. The local authority can become necessary or proper party provided sub-section 1 of Section 50 is applicable which is not the case here. In the circumstances, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside being completely illegal. Therefore, the petition must succeed.
Hence, impugned order dated 29 September, 2008 is quashed and set aside and the application exhibit 113 in LAR No.620/2000 stands dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 888 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f opinion that because of the Supreme Court decision, the petitioners became disentitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation. It is the direct result of the same that the petitioners' income became higher and the petitioners became liable for payment of advance tax on the basis of that higher income. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the contention of the standing counsel for the Income-tax Department that the petitioners' case is not covered by the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes relied upon by the petitioner. I am of opinion that the said notification covers the petitioners' case also. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are not liable to pay any interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The original petition is allowed as above.
-
2009 (11) TMI 887 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - valuation done on the basis of cost construction method applying CAS-4 - absence of comparable prices - Held that:- There are no comparable prices available. The Department has merely taken the indicative prices given in the invitation to tender document set out by TWAD Board inviting quotations. The same does not indicate either actual or comparable prices of the pipes.
Thus, the valuation adopted by the Department is not based on any comparable value and the same cannot be approved.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 886 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of tax on the receipt of royalty charges, for the usage of trade mark - Transfer of the right to use the Trade Mark - taxability
-
2009 (11) TMI 885 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... il appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay of 280 days, leaving the question of law open.
-
2009 (11) TMI 884 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Arbitral Tribunal, legality of which is questioned before the court. The Legislature has vested wide discretion in the court to set aside an award wholly or partly, of course, within the strict limitations stated in the said provisions. The scheme of the Act, the language of the provisions and the legislative intent does not support the view that judicial discretion of the court is intended to be whittled down by these provisions. 2. The proviso to section 34(2)(a)(iv) has to be read ejusdem generis to the main section, as in cases falling in that category, there would be an absolute duty on the court to invoke the principle of severability where the matter submitted to arbitration can clearly be separated from the matters not referred to arbitration and decision thereupon by the Arbitral Tribunal. 39. Having answered the questions framed, we direct that this appeal and the arbitration petitions be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with law.
-
2009 (11) TMI 883 - SC ORDER
Pre-deposit - Requirement of pre-deposit not only on the duty amount but also on interest and penalty -
-
2009 (11) TMI 882 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of detention passed by the detaining authority under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 be sustained?
Whether the respondents can prove satisfactorily that there is propensity and potentiality of the appellant to engage in smuggling activities in the future, if set free?
Whether the impounding of the passport of the appellant so as to prevent him from leaving the country will suffice in satisfying the object sought to be achieved by passing the detention order?
-
2009 (11) TMI 880 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... 2 No. 49/03-04 which leads to the conclusion that the said goods were short shipped. 8. Govt. further observes that to claim the rebate, the claimant has to establish that the same goods which have been manufactured/cleared vide ARE-2 and had suffered duty are exported against shipping bill. In the absence of the endorsement of the Customs Officer on the body of the ARE-2, it is not possible to co-relate the goods and to establish that same goods have been exported vide the shipping bill. Moreover, the goods in the instant case, were not opened for examination by the Customs Officers. 9. In view of the above discussions & findings. Govt. observes that the applicant has failed to establish that all the goods cleared vide ARE-2 were actually exported. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for rebate on the goods short shipped. 10. Govt. uphold the impugned order-in-appeal and order-in-original. 11. Revision application is rejected being devoid of merits.
-
2009 (11) TMI 879 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ice tax credit taken was wrong, action has to be taken at Pune. Therefore, as held in case of Philips Electronics, these defects which are essentially laid down to ensure that the details of input service is available with the person who is taking credit, can be considered rectifiable. Therefore, what is required to be seen is whether the defects have been rectified by the appellant as per law and whether there is any irregular credit availed. 5. Since the issue involved is very short and can be decided, we allow the stay petition and set aside the impugned order. The matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority who shall get the records of the appellant verified and confirm that all the defects found in the invoices have been rectified and the appellants have taken the credit which is admissible to them. Needless to say that the appellants shall be given an opportunity to present their case, before a final decision is taken. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 878 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... re granted necessary permission for coastal run. At that stage the proper officer could have imposed a condition that duty should be paid on the same but that has not been done. Hence we are of the view that the appellants have not contravened the provision of Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962. Coming to the provision of Section 111(f), we find that it applies for not manifesting dutiable and prohibited goods. In this case the appellants did manifest the impugned tug though as a vessel coming on ballast. Hence we are of the view that this is not a case of omission to manifest the impugned tug and Section 111(f) cannot be said to be attracted in this case. In view of the fact that only these two provisions have been cited by the adjudicating Commissioner for confiscating the impugned tug and imposing penalty and in our view both these provisions are not applicable in this case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 877 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Validity of seizure challenged - Held that:- Force in the argument of learned standing counsel for the Department that the question of validity of the seizure order can be gone into by the authority concerned.
An order passed under the said proviso is appealable under section 57(4) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act before the Tribunal. It goes without saying that the order passed by the Tribunal is revisable by the High Court. This being so, we are of the opinion that the adequate alternative remedy has been provided for, under the Act. Thus dismiss the present writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner.
-
2009 (11) TMI 876 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y goods to any individual or contractor in respect of the items mentioned in annexure B of the assessment order. Since no materials gathered by the assessing authority to treat the quotation as sales, we are unable to sustain the estimate made in this regard. Accordingly, we order for the deletion of tax at 15 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 56,790 and eight per cent tax the turnover of Rs. 40,340 and consequential equal addition made on the above turnover by the assessing officer. As observed by the Tribunal, there were no materials for treating the quotation as sale bill and estimating the turnover on the basis of the quotation. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the assessing authority has not probed the matter beyond treating the quotation book as sale bill. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the tax case revision is dismissed. No costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 875 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Natural justice - cancellation of registration of dealers - Held that: - Considering the fact that the status as a registered dealer confers certain rights and privilege on the dealer under the Act, in fairness to the rights of the petitioner, the respondent should have intimated about not only the rejection of the request seeking time but also the grounds on which the proposal is made, so that the petitioner has the opportunity to rebut the same - there is no hesitation in accepting the plea of the petitioner that the order is passed without observing the principles of natural justice and the same has to be set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2009 (11) TMI 874 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether the activity of works contract up to March 31, 2006 is exigible to the KVAT Act, 2003?
Held that:- Once the work is assigned by the contractor to its subcontractor, the contractor ceases to execute the work because the property passes by accretion and there is no property in goods left with the contractor which is capable of retransfer either as goods or in any other form. Thus, the transfer of property is from sub-contractor to the contracting party that is contractee, namely, the recipient. Hence the work executed by the subcontractor results in single transaction and not as multiple transaction.
Hence, it would be erroneous to hold that the payments made by the contractor to the sub-contractor would require to be brought within the total turnover of the appellant or contractor and if such an interpretation is to be given it would lead to double taxation and hence the consideration for execution of works contract executed refers to consideration received by the principal contractor and does not include the consideration received and paid to sub-contractor.
Under section 15 of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the period up to March 1, 2006 the principal contractor is entitled for deduction of payment made by subcontractors only if they are registered dealers and the said sub-contractor has accounted for it and paid tax thereon. In favour of the assessee
-
2009 (11) TMI 873 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance of the exemption from tax on the turnover and levying tax at the rate of 10 per cent as outright inter-State sales in the absence of C form, by an order dated May 7, 1980
Held that:- The comparison of the orders placed by Rallis India Limited, Bombay, to the Cochin Branch or to the appellant's factory at Ooty does not make any link between the despatches regularly carried out by the appellant's factory. For example in the month of August 13 despatches were effected, in September 22 despatches were made, in October 5 despatches were made, in November 14 despatches were made, in December 4 despatches were made, in January 11 despatches were made, in February 5 despatches were made and in March 5 despatches were made. Thus there is no consistency or link between the export made by Rallis India Limited and the despatches of goods carried out by the appellant's company. The set of facts held for the 'year', from the foregoing analysis is the similar one as decided by the High Court of Madras in the case of Rallis India Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1990 (9) TMI 336 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. the Department has not made out any case to interfere with the well-considered order of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 872 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Incentives and concessions announced by the State of Himachal Pradesh as per the Industrial Policy Scheme of 1999 and the notification dated July 23, 1999 issued for grant of incentives and concessions under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 questioned
Held that:- If the argument made on behalf of the State is accepted then the result would be that the unit would have to pay sales tax on the entire sales of ₹ 61 lacs at the full prescribed rate whereas on sales up to ₹ 60 lacs it will not have collected any sales tax from the customers. It will make the units totally uneconomic and unviable. How can an assessee who has not collected sales tax be directed to deposit the sales tax?
The only logical interpretation which can be given to sales tax notification to make it workable in accordance with the incentive policy is that the eligible units will be entitled to the exemption/concession up to the prescribed limit of ₹ 60 lacs and ₹ 45 lacs and if the turnover exceeds the aforesaid prescribed limits then it will have to pay full sales tax on the sales exceeding the prescribed limit. This will lead to certainty in the mind of the entrepreneur. He knows that up to ₹ 45 lacs or ₹ 60 lacs, he is entitled to either a concessional rate of sales tax or full exemption. Thereafter, he has to pay full sales tax on the sales exceeding over and above the prescribed limit.
-
2009 (11) TMI 871 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , as the earlier Government notification has not been withdrawn and no fresh notification has been issued, parties are governed by the Government Notification and not based on the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said particular case. Therefore, he requests the court to dismiss the revision petition. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we do not see any questions of law arise in this appeal since the Government Notification dated March 31, 1984 has not been withdrawn by the Government till 1997 even though Supreme Court had declared the Bengal gram and fried gram as different commodities. If the Government has committed a mistake without bringing to the notice of the assessee, the assessing officer cannot call upon the assessee to pay tax at a higher rate when he has not collected the amount in view of the Government notification. In the circumstances, we do not see any substantial question of law arises in this revision. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
............
|
