|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 237 Records
-
1983 (3) TMI 256 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in a contract for sale, the main object is the transfer of the property and delivery of possession of the property, in the case of a works contract, the main object is not the transfer of the property but one for work and labour. However, there is no well-settled or standard formula by which one can distinguish a contract of sale from a contract for work and labour. It is quite evident that the contract hereunder is indeed a composite and indivisible one and the dominant object of the contract is to execute, under the supervision of the department, involving no skill and labour and therefore, the use of the boulders in the process of execution is only incidental and subsidiary to the main. In view of the above, we unhesitatingly hold that the transaction does not amount to supply of material, but it is a contract for work and labour. Therefore, the contentions of the Government Pleader are rejected. In the result, the T.R.Cs. are dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250/
-
1983 (3) TMI 255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that it is not shown that she has purchased the goods in question from outside the State, the assessee can be taken to have purchased the goods representing 50 per cent of the escaped turnover from local registered dealers and therefore to the extent of said 50 per cent, the sales should be taken to be second sales. Once it has been shown that the assessee is not a manufacturer of the goods in question and she has not purchased the same from outside the State, we cannot assume that the entire escaped turnover represents first sales, as contended by the Revenue. On the facts and circumstances of this case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal appear to be justified in adopting the ratio of 50 50 based on a decision of this Court in Govindan and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1975 35 STC 50 and also an unreported decision of this Court in K.P. Raja Mohamed v. State of Tamil Nadu (T.C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1981-Madras High Court). The tax case is therefore dismissed.
-
1983 (3) TMI 254 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that these documents were necessary for the nature of the enquiry to be held under the Act has seized them. Before seizing documents, it is neither possible nor desirable to scrutinise each document with meticulous care. 46.. On an examination of the order of seizure I find it difficult to hold that the officer had acted whimsically or had seized the documents indiscriminately. 47.. In my view, Jhaver s case 1967 20 STC 453 (SC) AIR 1968 SC 59 is not an authority for either of the last two contentions urged by Sri Gandhi. 48.. As all the contentions urged for the petitioner fail, this writ petition is liable to be rejected. I, therefore, reject this writ petition with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. 49.. Smt. M.R. Vanaja, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance for the respondent within 15 days from this day. 50.. Let a carbon copy of this order certified by the Court Officer be furnished to the learned High Court Government Pleader.
-
1983 (3) TMI 253 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1981 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). In both these cases, it was held that penalty under section 8(2) should be imposed in the case of firewood having regard to the rate of tax provided for firewood in entry No. 8 of Part III of Schedule II. These were also cases of assessees who were forest contractors and who had taken a forest coupe consisting of timber trees and firewood trees. 4.. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) and (2) There is no sale of standing trees for the sale takes place when the trees are felled and the rate of tax applicable would be as provided in entry 8 of Part III of Schedule II for firewood and in the residuary entry for timber. (3) The penalty imposable under section 8(2) for violating the condition of declaration will be calculated on the basis of the rate mentioned in entry 8, Part III of Schedule II, for firewood and the rate mentioned in residuary entry for timber. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 252 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t with an article not covered by the said registration certificate, namely, aluminium alloy. We are unable to agree with the said interpretation sought to be made by the learned Additional Government Pleader. On the other hand, the only reasonable interpretation as rendered in English is resale of only brassware, eversilverware, copperware, steel furniture, etc. It, therefore, follows that Vakayara which is almost equivalent to etc. will cover all the articles referred to earlier and also allied articles. It is not in dispute that on such an interpretation there can be no room for the contention that the assessee had dealt with an article, namely, aluminiumwares, which is not covered under the registration certificate. On the above basis it follows that there can be no violation of section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Consequently the orders passed by the Tribunal are unassailable. The revisions are, therefore, dismissed. Words in Tamil script are transliterated here.
-
1983 (3) TMI 251 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rger Bench as was urged on behalf of the department. If the question arising in this case would have been the same as arose in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Himmatlal and Co. 1981 47 STC 415 1981 14 VKN 245 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jammatlal Prahaladrai 1983 54 STC 392 1982 15 VKN 352, we would have referred the matter to a Full Bench to resolve the conflict. But in the instant case, it is not necessary to do so. 6.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this Court is that the Tribunal was right in holding that the turnover relating to sale of cotton seeds worth Rs. 66,360.05, which was not assessed by the assessing officer and was not at issue before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, could not be revised by the Commissioner under section 39(2) of the Act, after the expiry of three years from the date of the order passed by the assessing authority. 7.. Reference answered accordingly. 8.. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 250 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es required by the customer and the log is thereafter cut to sizes and the sawing charges are collected from the customer. Thus the work of sawing the log purchased already is an independent bargain and that relates to the services rendered by the assessee after the sale of the log to the purchaser. Therefore, it has to be taken to be a post-sale service which has been the subject-matter of a separate bargain and it has been paid for separately apart from the price of the log purchased by the customer. The view taken by the Board of Revenue that it is a pre-sale charge is therefore not tenable and the sawing charges should be taken to be only a post-sale charge which is the subjectmatter of a separate bargain between the assessee and his customer and which is separately paid for. In this view, we have to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 249 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... riod subsequent to the date of the inspection have been sustained by the Tribunal and this calls for the imposition of penalty under section 12(3). However, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the suppressed turnover was to the extent of Rs. 76,543. We are of the view that the suppressed transactions can be taken to be only as Rs. 20,000 because that was the addition made to the turnover disclosed in the assessee s return. The tax payable on the said turnover of Rs. 20,000 at 4 per cent comes to Rs. 800 and therefore even if a penalty is to be levied it can be only on the basis of the tax payable on the suppressed turnover of Rs. 20,000. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and pass an order levying a penalty under section 12(3) on the assessee in a sum of Rs. 800 being the tax leviable on Rs. 20,000 which is taken to be the suppressed turnover. The tax case is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 248 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... id charges in the sale price and make it a part of the taxable turnover. It is also to be noted here that the charges are not collected by the assessee from each and every customer. But it is collected only from (those) customers who want the cutting and bending to be done in respect of the articles purchased by them for the purpose of easy transport. It is not in dispute in this case that the cutting and bending charges are collected apart from the sale price and it is not also in dispute that no sales tax has been collected by the assessee on the said charges and the assessee has collected sales tax only in respect of the actual sale price of the articles. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to agree with the view taken by the Board of Revenue in this case. The order of the Board of Revenue is therefore set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed and there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
-
1983 (3) TMI 247 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of paper and paper boards to tax on the alternative ground that the sales of paper and paper boards would be liable to tax, even if the turnover in relation to the finished products could not be brought to tax. Thus, we find that there is no material to indicate that the sales of paper and paper boards by the assessees are first sales liable to tax. As already stated, the assessees made a claim even before the assessing authority that their sales of paper and paper boards were second sales and that has been accepted by the assessing authority without question. Under these circumstances, it is not open to the Revenue now to contend that the sales of paper and paper boards were not second sales, but they were first sales. In this view of the matter, we do not see any justification for interference with the order of the Tribunal. The tax case is therefore dismissed. The assessee will, have their costs from the Revenue-Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only).
-
1983 (3) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... intend to exercise its suo motu powers of revision at the instance of the assessee. Such an intimation was held not to be an order under section 34(1) of the Act and therefore no appeal would lie to the High Court against such intimation under section 37 of the Act. We do not see how that decision is of any relevance for the determination of the power of the Tribunal under section 36(3)(a)(i) of the Act. As a result of the above discussion, we have to hold that the Tribunal is in error in holding that the application filed by the Revenue for enhancement is not maintainable. We accordingly hold that the enhancement petition filed by the State is maintainable. Since we have held that the enhancement petition by the State is maintainable, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal of the said enhancement petition on merits. The tax case is ordered accordingly. The Revenue will have its costs from the assessees. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only).
-
1983 (3) TMI 245 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... meanings, the change in the language of entry No. 8 in the First Schedule to the Act can be looked into when the earlier entry is capable of more than one interpretation. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. S.K. Roy AIR 1966 SC 1995 It is a well recognised principle in dealing with matters of construction that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier Act, where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of more than one interpretation (see Ormound Investment Co. Ltd. v. Belts 1928 AC 143 at p. 156). 5.. In our opinion, therefore, chapati and tanduri roti cannot be considered as bread and exempted from sales tax under entry 8 of the First Schedule to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 6.. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 244 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act takes in sale in the course of business . A sale may be by a dealer not only of the main product that he produces, but also of the subsidiary product which would also be in the course of business. If, in the process of manufacture of concrete pipes, the byeproducts which the dealer may choose to call as waste material but which is of commercial value, become available for sale (the sale) by him of such material would be a regular phenomena depending on his business activity and therefore such sale would also be in the course of business. It is not incidental to the business. In that view, the taxation of the amount of Rs. 14,000 taken as representing the value of the bye-product sold cannot be said to be objectionable. There is no dispute as to the quantum and therefore that question does not arise. Hence the contention that the assessee is not liable to tax on the sale of what he terms as waste cannot succeed. The revision petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 243 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case of Manickam and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1977 39 STC 12 (SC) 1977 Tax LR 1621 AIR 1977 SC 518 where the question related to construction of section 15(b) as it stood before its amendment. The Supreme Court in this case observed that an amendment which is by way of clarification of an earlier ambiguous provision can be useful aid in construing the earlier provision, even though such amendment is not given retrospective effect . In the light of these decisions, we can say that the conclusion reached by us by confining our attention to section 14(iv)(d), as it stood before its amendment, is also supported by the indication shown in the amending Act of the original intention. 13.. For the reasons given above, we answer the question as follows Iron hoops are declared goods falling within section 14(iv)(d)(iv) of the Central Act and are taxable at 3 per cent under entry No. 5 of Part I of Schedule II to the State Act. There will be no order as to costs of these references.
-
1983 (3) TMI 242 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In the case which we are required to consider, the assessees have charged separately for biscuits and have collected sales tax only on the price of biscuits. They have shown the amount of deposit collected for the tins separately in the invoice in a column specially printed for that purpose. They have also incurred an obligation to accept tins which are returned and on such return to refund the amount of deposit. In these circumstances the amount of deposit in the hands of the assessee-company at the end of the assessment year which is written off by the assessees on a notional basis cannot be treated as price of tins sold and is not exigible to sales tax. 13.. In the premises, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the department. 14.. The respondents to pay to the applicants the costs of the reference. The applicants will be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs. 100 deposited by them with the Tribunal.
-
1983 (3) TMI 241 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alled for distinction. We are equally of the opinion that a return would not fall within the expression other document in sub-section (2) of section 7-A, a fact which becomes evident from the distinctive scheme of the two provisions. Penalty under section 7-A(2) can be levied for the mere issuance or production of a false bill, voucher or declaration, etc., whether before finalising the assessment, or thereafter whereas penalty under sub-section (8) of section 14 can be levied only at the time of, or subsequent to, the making of the assessment order. Inasmuch as it is found by the Tribunal in this case that the petitioner has not actually produced the bill said to have been falsely obtained by it from Kotha Venkateswara Rao of Rajahmundry, nor did it file the declaration in form E no penalty could have been levied upon it under sub-section (2) of section 7-A. For the above reasons, the tax revision case succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1983 (3) TMI 240 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing Sri Narasimhan has placed before me the notification dated 1st February, 1977, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring power on the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Davanagere, to exercise the powers over the entire District of Chitradurga. 15.. In view of the aforesaid notification and the construction placed by me earlier, the ACTO was competent to search the premises and seize the document from the petitioner on 16th August, 1978. 16.. On the above discussion, it follows that the order made by the ACTO on 16th August, 1978, does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or manifest illegality justifying this Court s interference under article 226 of the Constitution. 17.. As the only contention urged for the petitioner fails, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule issued in the case. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear the own costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 239 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see for consideration and the transaction between the two parties was a transaction of sale and nothing else. 6.. It is not disputed that if the assessee purchased the stone metal (gitti) supplied by him to the railway from Govindram Hanuman Prasad who is a registered dealer the price paid by him has to be excluded from the taxable turnover as defined by section 2(r)(ii) of the Act. 7.. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was not justified in arriving at the decision that there was no sale of the stone metal (gitti) by Govindram Hanuman Prasad to the assessee, and consequently, the amount of Rs. 7,930 paid by the assessee to Govindram Hanuman Prasad was not the price of the stone metal (gitti) but was in the form of a royalty. 8.. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1983 (3) TMI 238 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d, some demand may be raised. It is also possible, as has been contended by Dr. Pal for the petitioners, that the reassessment may not result in any demand. When the matter stands in such a position, can it be said that the amount, refund of which is claimed, is due from the petitioners under the Act? If the money is not due from it, certainly the right to claim refund under the parent provision of section 14 arises. 8.. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision, the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party is untenable. The petitioner is entitled to get refund of the tax paid. 9.. The writ application is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. 10.. The order of rejection of the refund applications as per annexure-6 is quashed. Issue writ of mandamus commanding the Sales Tax Officer to refund the amount of tax paid against the assessments, which have been set aside, in accordance with law to the petitioner. BEHERA, J.-I agree.
-
1983 (3) TMI 237 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Schedule II of the State Act the normal meaning as laid down by the Supreme Court to include puffed rice and beaten rice. We, therefore, hold that sales of beaten rice and puffed rice would be taxable at the rate of 3 per cent and not at the rate of 10 per cent as is contended by the department. 7.. In Misc. Petition No. 259 of 1983, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has also taxed sales of paddy husk. Sales of paddy husk known as konda are completely exempt from tax by notification dated 7th April, 1967, issued under section 12 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, in error in taxing sales of paddy husk. 8.. The petitions are allowed. The assessment orders in both the petitions are quashed. The assessing authorities will have liberty to pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs of these petitions. 9.. The learned Government Advocate prays for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court which is refused.
........
|
