|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 253 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion raised in this case. We have already referred to what the dealers purchased in these cases and the processes they adopt for bringing into existence the end-product. From what we have stated it is clear that the raw bones purchased by the dealers in these cases cannot be said to have been consumed in the process of bringing into existence the crushed bone, bone grist, bone-meal, fluff or horn hoof, apart from the distinctive meaning that will have to be attributed to the word manufacture . Consequently, with regard to these purchases of the raw bones and the end-products which were sold locally, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding section 7-A(1)(a) is not attracted, as there has been no consumption of the goods purchased in the manufacture of other goods. The result is the Tribunal is right in its conclusion in this behalf and therefore all the three tax revision cases are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In a broad sense, it may mean anything that is fabricated or put together. From a reading of entry 30-C, it has to be held that it is used in the former sense and not in the latter sense. The expression leather cloth, imitation leather cloth and cotton fabric found in entry 30-C gives the necessary colour and meaning to the word fabrics . 8.. To conclude, I would hold that the Laxmi Machinery Store s case 1978 42 S.T.C. 433 (S.C.).still holds the field and reaffirming the same, I would return the answer to the question posed at the very outset in the negative, i.e., that transmission rubber belting is not exempt under item 30-B of Schedule B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. 9.. Once it is held as above that the issue is covered on all fours against the petitioners by the binding precedent, it is unnecessary and indeed would be wasteful to advert to any other point. 10.. The writ petitions are without merit and are hereby dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ced by its dominant object, is a sale of food and the rendering of services is merely incidental, the transaction would undoubtedly be exigible to sales tax. In every case it will be for the taxing authority to ascertain the facts when making an assessment under the relevant sales tax law and to determine upon those facts whether a sale of the food supplied is intended. This passage clearly shows that each case will have to be decided on its own facts and from the mere fact that the food was supplied in a restaurant and not a high-styled restaurant or a residential hotel it cannot be presumed to be a sale or no sale. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal even in respect of the assessment and remand the matter for fresh disposal in the light of the above observations. We may add that the order of the Tribunal so far as the penalty is concerned is set aside and the Tribunal is not entitled to go into it again. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 250 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provisions, it is clear that the Rs. 50,000 limit has been exceeded. The total turnover takes within its ambit taxable as well as non-taxable turnover. Admittedly, Rs. 14,717.50 is taxable turnover. Assuming that the sum of Rs. 43,000 and odd is a non-taxable turnover, that has also to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the total turnover . Section 3(1) talks of the total turnover exceeding Rs. 50,000. So, the two have to be added together for determining the liability. When they are added, clearly the assessee is liable to be taxed on the sum total of the two turnovers. Rules, as we said, cannot have the overriding effect on the provisions of the Act. Though the point that was raised in that case was slightly different from the one with which we are dealing in the instant case, still, the decision in the above case supports our conclusion in the present case. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 249 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with that of the appellate authority even in respect of such a question. In the Madurai Mills Co. Limited s case(1), therefore, it was held that, in fact, what the Board of Revenue in that case sought to revise was the order of the departmental Tribunal and the action was barred by limitation. The same was the case before the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P.) and the Board of Revenue rightly held that the action taken under section 39(2) by the Commissioner was barred by limitation. 7.. The question referred to us, therefore, is answered as follows Under the facts and circumstances of the case in which penalty under section 43(1) of the Act had not been imposed either by the assessing authority or by the first appellate authority, the time-limit for initiating the proceedings under section 39(2) of the Act will be taken from the date of the order of assessment and the proceedings under section 39(2) were time-barred. 8.. No order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 248 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 27,752. Perusal of the declaration appended to the notification under reference would further strengthen the view that every dealer whose turnover did not exceed Rs. 50,000 during the year of his business qualified for the benefit under the notification. He has only to declare that his turnover during the year..................does not exceed Rs. 50,00 . Unless it was shown as a fact that during the period of the assessment year in which the dealer carried on his business his turnover exceeded Rs. 50,000 the department was bound to exempt such a dealer from payment of sales tax. 7.. In this view of the matter we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the dealer who has his business only in part of the year is to be allowed the benefit of Notification No. 4290-3070-V-ST dated 14th December, 1967, if other conditions are satisfied. Thus, we answer the question in the affirmative. 8.. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1980 (9) TMI 247 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other dealers. Since the assessee could not offer any explanation against this item of evidence, the Assessing Authority framed best judgment assessment against him for the year 1963-64 at the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2 lacs for 1964-65. The first appellate authority also disbelieved the story put forth on behalf of the assessee that its muneem had taken away the account books and the said muneem was not available at the material time. 6.. Since the assessee failed to produce account books, it was open to the Assessing Authority to frame a best judgment assessment on the basis of evidence collected by it, which was duly put to the assessee. We are accordingly unable to find any fault with the determined rate of sales tax by the authorities below. The first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The second question is, however, answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C. 256 (S.C.) 1980 E.L.T. 383 (S.C.). and held that the term fabric covers all textiles, no matter how construed, how manufactured, or the nature of the material from which made, and the expression textiles is any product manufactured from fibres through twisting, interlacing, boning, looping, or any other means, in such a manner that the flexibility, strength and other characteristic properties of the individual fibres are not suppressed. Thus textiles has a wider meaning than fabrics and if cotton-belting and hair-belting were included in the expression cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics............ , certainly it would also be covered by the word textiles , in item 4 of the Third Schedule as it stood prior to its amendment. The decision of the Tribunal that the turnover is exempt under item 4 of the Third Schedule is therefore correct and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the tax revision case is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 245 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the quantity of electrical energy supplied to the consumer, but a K.W.H. meter is an instrument which a distributor requires for measuring the quantity of actual electrical energy distributed to the consumer. We are, accordingly, of the opinion that neither the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Import Association 1975 35 S.T.C. 491 1974 U.P.T.C. 565. nor the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Scientific Importers, Zero Road, Allahabad 1978 42 S.T.C. 328 1978 U.P.T.C. 398., is an authority for the proposition that K.W.H. meters are electrical instruments which are not required for distribution of electrical energy and the action of the respondent in issuing the notices under sections 22 and 21 of the Sales Tax Act on the basis of those decisions is not legally justified. In the result, all these petitions succeed and are allowed with costs. The notices under sections 22 and 21 of the Sales Tax Act impugned in these petitions are quashed. Petitions allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 244 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the financial status of the purchasing dealers who made huge payments on cash basis were considered to be insufficient circumstances for drawing a conclusion against the dealer. In spite of this binding authority, the Assessing Authority in the instant case drew a presumption against the dealer on account of its own default in declining to enforce the process against Laxmi Narain. In other words, the decision rendered by the Assessing Authority is based on some circumstances which are wholly irrelevant. Such a decision cannot be allowed to stand. It is settled law that where a decision of a quasijudicial authority rests on some circumstances which are relevant and some which are irrelevant the decision stands vitiated. We, therefore, allow this petition and answer the two questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The case shall now go back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. No costs. DHILLON, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 243 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate had not preferred any appeal against the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of those assessment years and had allowed his decision to become final. For the remaining three assessment years covered by the second group, namely, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the assessing authority will have to conduct the investigation only in respect of the sales turnover relating to the roasted coffee beans and pure coffee after affording an opportunity to the assessee to establish its case that those products were actually out of raw coffee beans purchased within the State. In the light of our conclusion that the French coffee sold by the assessee cannot be regarded as identical with coffee covered by entry No. 37, the assessee is not entitled to any exemption from tax in respect of the turnover of sales of French coffee. The revision petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 242 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In my opinion, pulleys would clearly fall in the category of hardware and mill stores if the above criteria are kept in view and thus it would not be correct to say that the characteristics of mill stores and hardware were not taken into consideration in the case of Suresh Iron Foundry1974 U.P.T.C. 136. In regard to the nature of the mill stores and hardware the same view has been taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Ram Niwas Puskar Dutt 1971 28 S.T.C. 736 (F.B.). In that case weights and measures were not treated as the item of mill stores and hardware because they have nothing in common with mill stores and do not fall within the expression mill stores and hardware . Hence, following the decision in the Suresh Iron Foundry case(1), I hold that pulleys are an item of mill stores and hardware liable to be taxed as such. The revision is hence allowed. The Commissioner is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 241 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e even when available to be used for certain specific purposes and no new commodity has come into existence. 9.. The Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act (52 of 1952) was repealed by the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956) and cotton yarn is an item of declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. At the relevant time, it was exigible to tax at two per cent. 10.. Our answer to the Question referred to this Court for opinion, therefore, is that cotton thread sold by the dealer was exigible to tax at 2 per cent as declared goods under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The assessee is entitled to costs of the reference. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 200. The assessment under section 12(4) of the Act adopting the rate of three per cent having become final. the Tribunal while dealing with this matter under section 24(5) of the Act should ensure that such assessment is not interfered with. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 240 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to establish his case. Even the principal, for whom the petitioner claims to have worked, does not say that the notings in the account slips and account books represent such transactions. In such an event, the authorities were entitled to infer that the transactions amounted to sale and purchase, especially when it was admitted that the petitioner was dealing in such commodities. The next contention that was raised was that in respect of groundnuts it was not shown that the petitioner was the last purchaser. Once it is held that the transaction is one of purchase, the burden lies upon the petitioner to show that he subsequently sold the groundnuts to a third party within the State and, therefore, he cannot be said to be the last purchaser within the State. This he failed to do. The Tribunal was therefore right in holding that the petitioner was the last purchaser. In the result, the revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 239 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sales can be said to be inter-State sales?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The alternative prayer made in the writ petition succeeds, the assessment orders for the assessment years 1970-71, 1973-74 and 1974-75 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, U.P., and the revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 are quashed and respondent No. 4, the State of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to refund to IOC the sales tax collected from them on the sales of naphtha to the 5th respondent under the agreement dated February 9, 1970, and, further, not to levy sales tax on the sales under the said agreement under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
-
1980 (9) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT
Whether market fees paid on transactions of sale or purchase of specified agricultural produce in the market area established under the Adhiniyam can be included in the turnover of purchases for purposes of levy of tax under the Act?
Held that:- Appeal is allowed in part. The inclusion of the market fees in the turnover of purchases of the assessee for purposes of levy of tax under the Act is set aside. The assessing authority is directed to modify the order of assessment in accordance with this decision. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 221 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... the scheme, must be for the proper working of the compromise and/or arrangement. (p. 351) In the instant case, for the proper working of the scheme of compromise or arrangement, it is necessary to modify the scheme and the schedule of repayment of debts, and the schedule of repayment of debts to the creditors on pro rata basis as mentioned in the schedule to the scheme has to be modified and the repayment of debts for the first five years, 1979-80 to 1983-84 should be altered as 1980-81 to 1984-85. Company Petition, C.P. No. 15/79, is ordered and the scheme is sanctioned subject to the aforesaid modification of the schedule with regard to repayment of the debts. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the sanctioning of the scheme of compromise or arrangement, the winding-up petitions, C. P. No. 6/78, C. P. No. 7/78, and C. P. No. 10/79, are liable to be dismissed, and are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 220 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... said Act. The learned judge was misled and proceeded on the basis that the appellant-company did not take any step to get the said award filed. In my opinion, the conduct of the appellant, as disclosed hereinabove, would clearly show that the company has no intention to proceed with the application for setting aside the said award, but the company at the same time intends that the point raised herein be decided first so that the court might hold that the company cannot be deemed to be unable to pay its debts in connection with the said award until judgment and a decree would be passed thereon in accordance therewith. For the reasons as stated above, the appellant has failed to satisfy this court about the same and the court accordingly is bound to hold that the company is unable to pay its debts and the order of the learned judge of the court below should be upheld. That being the position, the appeal is bound to be and is hereby dismissed with costs. Basak, J. mdash I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... at most of the defendants are residents of Jalpaiguri and the registered office of the company being at Jalpaiguri all the statutory books and other documents would remain at the registered office. Hence by asking the company to produce all those documents and papers and books of account to show as and when and for whatever such investments were made by the company, it appears to me that it would cause great inconvenience not only to the company but also to the other shareholders to come and defend the suit before this court. Although the plaintiff is the dominus litis , yet his right to a choice of forum is not absolute and the court has in a proper case the right to interfere with such choice. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Hence, I pass an order in terms of prayears (a), (b). Costs could be costs in the cause. There will be a stay of operation of this order for a fortnight from date.
-
1980 (9) TMI 202 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... em by paying the balance of amount due on the various calls or reduce their shareholding by asking the company to appropriate the full value of such number of shares as fully subscribed. Pursuant to the negotiations all other petitioners have reached settlement with the company except this petitioner. In such circumstances, this petition, in my opinion, is more a vexatious and a motivated one and not with a genuine intention of having his name deflected from the register of members of the company on any technical or legal ground. Therefore, in these circumstances, in public interest as well as in the interest of the company which is a going concern, it is not inappropriate for this court to reject the prayer of the petitioner under section 155 of the Act, more so when the name of the petitioner no longer remains in the register of members of the company in so far as it relates to the shares in question. The petition is, therefore, rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
