|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 168 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... used in item No. 18 of the notification dated 9th March, 1970, does not include neel (ultramarine blue). The view taken by the Division Bench of the Board in its order dated 28th April, 1978, is correct. Sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent under the residuary item was leviable in respect of the sale of neel (ultramarine blue), which was sold by the dealerassessee. The order dated 28th April, 1978 does not call for any interference, as the rate of sales tax payable on the sale of neel (ultramarine blue) regarding the aforesaid two periods under consideration was rightly decided. The question of law stated above is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the dealerassessee. These references, which are deemed to be applications for revision under section 15 of the Act, as substituted by the Amendment Act, are accordingly disposed of as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1985 (11) TMI 221 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ding the case and, as such, it is expedient that the Tribunal should be directed to decide the appeal afresh taking note of the notification dated 10th October, 1968. In case the said notification has not been superseded and the assessee sold goods to the customers against the issuance of form 3 Kha, who had been granted recognition certificate under section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the applicant would be entitled to the said benefit inasmuch as he could not have realised the sales tax from the customers, if they had been given recognition certificate and had issued form 3 Kha. In the result, the revision succeeds and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14th December, 1984, is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Petition allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 220 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the assessee in support of his aforesaid contention has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1976 38 STC 10 1975 UPTC 104 which relying on the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that galvanisation and corrugation process does not change the essential character of the iron and steel. They remain iron and steel. Learned chief standing counsel appearing for the department has not cited any authority in which a contrary view has been taken and has also not been able to place any material before me to take a different view. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and in view of the aforesaid decisions I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is fully justified and calls for no interference by this Court. In the result the revisions fail and are accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 219 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the law. From the said observation it is apparent that even in the opinion of the Tribunal, the questions posed were questions of law. Otherwise also, it has never been doubted that the question as to whether certain goods fall within a particular entry or not, is always a question of law. The prayer for reference, therefore, could not be declined on the ground that the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the law unless the matter was directly covered by some decision of this Court or of the Supreme Court. It is only question No. (2) which strictly arises in the present case and question No. (1) is in the nature of an argument. Consequently, the Tribunal is directed to refer the following question together with the statement of the case to this Court Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of tubular trusses was not covered by sub-item (v) of item (iv) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act? Petition allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 218 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ling the return late as well as by not depositing the entire tax amount in time and thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. In some cases the entire tax amount was not deposited even after the returns were filed. The Board of Revenue while deciding the special appeal took note of the only fact that the returns which were filed late and that being so the penalty was quashed. We have already mentioned above that in case the finding of the Board of Revenue is that the dealer was negligent in filing the returns late by 4 or 5 days, then of course the view taken by the Board of Revenue is correct. We have to decide the question of law on the basis of facts found established by the Board of Revenue and in this view of the matter we hold that the Board was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The question No. (2) is therefore answered in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1985 (11) TMI 217 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cation. He also submitted that the amended wording of section 38 (3-A) would not apply to the case of the applicant and, therefore, it also requires a correct interpretation thereof as to whether it affects the right of appeal of the applicant according to the provisions of law which was in force prior to the said amendment. 6.. Thus, we are of opinion that the question of law as proposed by the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, does arise in the present case. We, therefore, call upon the Tribunal requiring it to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner summarily rejecting the appeal under rule 58(1) and (3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules was not erroneous in law? The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 216 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tes structure issued by the State Government. It is not exigible to tax as a residuary commodity under item No. 19 of Table No. 17 of the rates structure. We, therefore, decide these references, which have been treated as revisions, as under (1) pachrangi dori is not a cotton fabric and is, therefore, not exempted from tax under the Act (2) pachrangi dori is a cotton yarn covered by clause (iib) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and is one of the goods declared to be of special importance. It would be, therefore, exigible to tax for the relevant period at 2 percent and (3) pachrangi dori does not fall under the residuary item No. 19 of Table No. 17 of the rates structure issued by the State Government. As such it is not exigible to tax at the general rate of 7 per cent meant for unclassified goods. We consequently uphold the view taken by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. Looking to the importance of the matter, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 215 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the lower authority. But to ignore the estimate made by the assessing authority on the basis of a well-accepted method and supported by available material, merely because the Tribunal thought that a different method, such as addition of a percentage to the accepted quantity of copra consumed, in the absence of any evidence to justify such deviation, was to act arbitrarily see Commissioner of Income-tax v. S.P. Jain 1973 87 ITR 370 (SC). 7.. Although we are satisfied that on principle the decision of the Tribunal cannot be supported for the reasons stated, in view of the fact that the difference between the tax determined by the Sales Tax Officer and the tax determined by the Tribunal is a trifle sum not exceeding Rs. 300, we do not propose to allow this revision petition as it would involve remand and fresh determination which, in the circumstances, would be sheer waste of time and money. Subject to the principle stated by us, the tax revision case is dismissed. No costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 214 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the question about the correctness or otherwise of the inference drawn as regards genuineness, truthfulness and accuracy of the account books or as regards to veracity of any other evidence can be said to raise any question of law. The findings recorded on these matters are essentially questions of facts and the correctness of the same cannot be questioned and canvassed in revision under section 11(1) of the Act. Whether in a particular case the account books should have been accepted or rejected is essentially a question of fact and does not give rise to a question of law. Thus, in view of the above, I do not find any question of law is involved for determination of the present revision so as to call for interference by this Court under section 11(1) of the said Act. The case stands concluded by the finding of fact and I do not find any infirmity in that finding. In the result, this revision fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 213 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onclusion reached by the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified. 5.. We find that a similar view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Polish Works 1970 26 STC 480 and also by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bhoomi Reddy 1970 26 STC 444. Learned counsel for the dealer referred to us a decision of the Madras High Court in Shansshia Oil Mills v. State of Madras 1967 20 STC 481. We find that the question involved for decision by us was not considered and decided therein with reference to the relevant statutory provisions. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider this decision at any length. 6.. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the department and against the dealer by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in giving the benefit of the concessional rate of tax to the dealer on the only material produced by it. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1985 (11) TMI 212 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. However, further appeal of the dealer has been allowed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this reference has been made, at the instance of the department, to answer the abovequoted questions of law. 3.. The main point urged is that tandem cycles are not the same as cycles or bicycles. However, according to the Tribunal, the expression tandem cycles would cover all cycles and not merely one category thereof. No infirmity in this conclusion of the Tribunal has been shown which is the basis for the ultimate decision of the Tribunal. This being so, there is nothing to indicate that the Tribunal s decision of the aforesaid questions was not justified. 4.. Consequently, the reference is answered against the department and in favour of the dealer by holding that the Tribunal was justified in the view it has taken on both the aforesaid questions. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1985 (11) TMI 211 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ise substantial questions of law of general importance and they need to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. Sri S. Rajendra Babu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, in our opinion, very rightly does not oppose the oral applications made by the petitioners. On one of the important questions that arise for determination, we have dissented from the view expressed by the High Court of Kerala in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Neroth Oil Mills Company Limited 1982 49 STC 249. We are of the view that the questions raised and decided in these cases are substantial questions of law of general importance and they need to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. We, therefore, allow the oral applications made by the petitioners in all these cases and grant them a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court of India and direct the Registrar to issue necessary certificates thereto to the petitioners.
-
1985 (11) TMI 210 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x of 1 per cent as provided for under section 5(3) of the Act. If that be so, it cannot be said that the respondentassessee has committed the offence falling under the above section. 10.. The above section, as already stated, creates an offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment. The words of the section therefore require to be interpreted strictly and in favour of the subject. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that penal statutes must be construed strictly. It is also a well-established principle of interpretation that in construing a penal statute, if any doubt arises, the construction more favourable to the subject should be preferred. 11.. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view. that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-respondent has not committed the offence falling under section 46(2)(d) of the Act. The tax revision cases are therefore liable to be rejected. Accordingly we dismiss the same. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 209 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... acture and sale also treat it in the category of medicines. The surgeons and patients purchase it for being used in stitching the wounds and for no other purpose because in fact it cannot be utilized for any other purpose, except for stitching the wounds. It has been brought on record that a Directorate of Medical Health, Uttar Pradesh Government, have also treated catguts-sutures as medicine while placing the order with the dealer-assessee for its supply to be made for uses in the hospitals. In view of the above, I find that no error has been committed by the appellate and revisional authorities in treating catguts-sutures to fall in the category of medicine and pharmaceutical preparations. The impugned orders, therefore, do not suffer from any error of law so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional power under section 11(1) of the Act. In the result, these revisions are dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 207 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Court - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court below having held that the residence or office of the official liquidator is not material for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court in view of the place of location of the first defendant-company, viz., at Karimnagar, the learned judge was wrong in holding that the court below has jurisdiction to try the suit merely because the High Court passed orders appointing the official liquidator in the winding up proceedings. For these reasons, I allow this revision and set aside the order passed by the court below and hold that the court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff-bank. I further hold that the court at Karimnagar alone is competent to try the suit against the defendants including the first defendant represented by the official liquidator. Accordingly, I direct the court below to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court. No costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 206 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Charges - Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... 9.05 Both Defendent No. 5 (ii) 2,08,616.90 R.A. Gupta (i) 45,16,025-31 47,24,624.21 Both Defendant No. 6 (ii) 2,08,616.90 B.K. Aggarwal (i) 44,04,50463 44,04,504.63 Person Defendant No. 7 B.P. Gupta (i) 2,27,466.05 4,30,082.95 Only mortgaged Defendant No. 8 (ii) 2,08,616.90 . property. (2)The decretal amount can be realised from the person/mortgaged/hypothecated properties of the defendants as mentioned in column 4 of the table given above. (3)The amount recovered from each of defendants Nos. 2 to 8 shall be adjusted in the account (?) for which he stood surety. (4)The plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale proceeds of the machinery already sold by the official liquidator from him subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. (5)The decretal amount be paid within four months, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply to the court for a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property. (6)Decree be drawn up in Form 5A of appendix D , Code of Civil Procedure.
-
1985 (11) TMI 192 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression and Mismanagement - Right to apply under section 397 and 398 ... ... ... ... ..... er interested but that the existence of the petition is being sought to be made use of by others who are total strangers to the Company Law Board s order. I think it will be a gross abuse of the restrictive provisions of section 399 to accept the plea on behalf of the petitioner. If such attempts are permitted, the provisions of section 399(4) can easily be circumvented and petitions made before the courts by less than the authorised number of members without any real authorisation from the Company Law Board. I agree with counsel for the respondent that the court should not allow such a thing to be done. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the six applicants of C. A. No. 899 of 1985 cannot be permitted to be considered as supporting petitioners in C. P. No. 91 of 1982 and C. P. No. 91 of 1982 deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable in the circumstances set out above. Company Petition No. 91 of 1982 and C. A. No. 899 of 1985 are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... prayer of the appellants in these appeals is that the yarn (falling under Item 18E of the Central Excise Tariff), manufactured in their factory and captively used by them in the same factory for weaving of fabrics, should be assessed at unsized weight. They stated that on this identical point there had been a number of orders passed by this Bench in favour of the assessees, a recent one in the series being that at 1986 (25) E.L.T. 691 (Tribunal) 1985 ECR 1305 (CEGAT) - M/s. Somasundaram Mills. These orders were in turn based on High Court judgments cited therein. 3. emsp The learned representative of the department had no submissions to make. 4. emsp On careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the appellants. Following the ratio of our earlier order aforesaid, we allow these three appeals with consequential relief to them. 5. emsp We wish to make it clear that the relief granted herein confined to the yarn captively used in the appellants rsquo factory for weaving.
-
1985 (11) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ), the goods have been erroneously treated as falling under T.I.18 or T.I. 22 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal has held in a series of decisions that this type of fabric cloth made specifically for being used in machinery of specified type is to be treated as goods falling under T.I. 68 of the CET. 3. ensp We, therefore, are satisfied that the authorities below have erred in treating the goods falling under T.I.18 or T.I. 22 of the CET for the purpose of additional duty of Customs (CVD). We are of the considered view that these goods were to be regarded as T.I.68 goods for this purpose. It is to be noted that at the relevant time of the imports, viz., 1976 there was no countervailing duty for T.I. 68 goods. Shri Gopinath concedes that this was introduced for the first time in 1979. We, therefore, find merit in the contention in the appeal that no CVD or Additional Duty of Customs was leviable on these goods. We accordingly allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1985 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron or steel products ... ... ... ... ..... mpire Industries case would be examined later on some other case. In this connection, it may also be observed that the Supreme Court in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Others - 1985 (21) E.L.T. .(3) (S.C.). held that the process of manufacture of product and the end use to which it is put, cannot necessarily be determinative of the classification of that product under a fiscal schedule like the Central Excise Tariff, what is more important is whether the broad description of the articles fix in with the expression used in the tariff. In the present case so already succinctly pointed out by Brother Syiem, the goods were steel strips before being subjected to process of cold rolling and were steel strips after the process of cold rolling and had discharged duty liability as strips before being subjected to the process. There could, therefore, arises no occasion for demanding duty again on the same product. 14. I agree with the order proposed by brother Syiem.
........
|
