|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 359 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 385 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... d or that, even if the application be entertained, further proceedings before the respondent No. 2 should remain stayed till disposal of appeals, if any, to be preferred by the applicant against the impugned orders of assessment. As the matters stand, the impugned orders of assessment are to be set aside. 6.. The application is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of assessment in respect of the applicant for the period of four quarters ending on January 31, 1977 and for quarters ending January 31, 1978 are set aside, as no notice was sent to the applicant before making the assessment for these two years. The certificate cases No. 121 ST (EL)/83-84 and No. 122 ST (EL)/ 83-84 before the respondent No. 2 are quashed. The respondent No. 3, if he thinks fit, will be at liberty to make fresh assessment against the applicant for the periods in question in accordance with law. 7.. The main application is, thus, disposed of. 8.. We make no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 384 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... On coming to know about that decision, the assessee, within a short time, i.e., on December 31, 1978, preferred two second appeals to the Tribunal and also applied for condonation of delay in filing the said appeals. 6.. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The assessee then moved the Tribunal for referring the said two questions to this Court. 7.. In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax the Tribunal had referred similar questions to this Court. By our judgment dated March 15/18, 1991 , we have held that such a cause cannot be regarded as sufficient cause and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in not condoning the delay on such a ground. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, that is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (3) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cannot be legitimately claimed that packing materials used for goods sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce when the packing charges are specified and charged for separately can be said to be eligible for exemption. Further, we are unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the Tribunal that as the coconut is exempt from tax, the packing materials cannot also be taxed. In our view, such an assumption has no support of law. In the light of the above position, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The fact that they have been separately shown and charged for indicates that those materials have also been sold and the same would give rise to an inference that there was an implied contract for the sale of packing materials themselves. Consequently, we accept the revisions and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the orders of the assessing authority stand restored. The tax revision cases are allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 382 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ween the assessee and the buyer and did vary the price payable by the buyer to the extent thereof. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. 1980 46 STC 220, a Bench of this Court also took the view that even if a discount allowed does not fall strictly within the concept of cash discount as contemplated under section 2(h) of the Act, still the amount is capable of adjustment in the sales tax assessment provided it goes to vary the price payable in respect of the goods. That was a case also where the assessee claimed exemption in respect of the rebate given to the dealers. That judgment fortifies the view that we have taken. 3.. Thus, in view of what we have said, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal dismissing the enhancement petition on the ground that the turnover of Rs. 93,249.41 being the rebate was not liable to tax is proper and sound. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but without any orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 381 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would be available only to a dealer dealing exclusively in the products of country oil chekku. The transactions which had been made by the assessee during the assessment year in question clearly went to show, as was noticed by the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority, that even in oil, the assessee was not dealing exclusively which the products of country oil chekku. The Tribunal, in our opinion, fell completely in error in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption provided in G.O. Ms. No. 1963, Revenue, dated April 21, 1960. In doing so, the Tribunal ignored the admitted facts as also the logical inferences from the same particularly when the assessee led no evidence to discharge the burden of proving to the contrary. The order of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained. We accordingly accept the tax revision case, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the order of the appellate authority. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the fact that the agent did not disclose the name of the principal. There is no requirement in law that the agent must disclose the name of the Indian principal in respect of the transactions which are entered into with the foreign buyer to establish that the sale is in fact an export sale and not a local sale. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the facts and circumstances noticed in the case that the export made by the assessee-respondent was through the agent and, therefore, the transactions in question were in the course of export and as such the sales were not exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is unexceptionable. The finding is based on proper appreciation of the material on record. It is neither unreasonable nor does it suffer from any other infirmities. The order of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, does not call for interference. The tax revision case therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 379 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 595 during the assessment year 1973-74. As regards question Nos. (2) and (3), we are of the view that they really did not arise before the Tribunal inasmuch as they were beyond the scope of the appeal as the appeal itself was preferred in respect of the assessment order passed for the year March 1, 1973 to February 28, 1974. The Tribunal really ought not to have gone into those questions while entertaining the appeal for the assessment year 1973-74. As it will not be proper to answer questions while entertaining the appeal for the assessment year 1973-74. As it will not be proper to answer questions which do not really arise for consideration, we decline to answer questions Nos. (2) and (3). For the reasons stated above, question No. (1) is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the department and question Nos. 2 and 3 are not answered. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 378 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 5-A is, in fact, clarificatory and this was the position even under the old entry 5. Copra is specifically classified again as entry No. 5-A which was already included in the original entry coconut . The original entry excluded tender coconuts. Watery coconuts cannot be tender coconuts and this view was taken by our High Court in the case of Sri Krishna Coconut Co. 1965 16 STC 511. It was held that a fully grown coconut with a well-developed kernel which contains water cannot be called either a tender or dried coconut. It is, thus, clear that the watery coconuts are within the original entry No. 5 of the Third Schedule. Once the goods were covered by entry No. 5 of the Third Schedule they automatically excluded by the definition of entry No. 10 of the Second Schedule. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the goods are not liable to tax additionally, as they are covered by entry No. 5 of the Third Schedule. With these remarks the T.R.C. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 377 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal to uphold the rejection of the books of accounts. 4.. The rest is a matter of honest estimate. The Tribunal has adverted to various important factors in considering whether the estimate is unduly harsh or arbitrary. As a matter of fact in recognition of the prima facie substance in some aspects, for the year 1979-80, there was a remit for considering the limited aspects in estimating the turnover. As regards the other years, the Tribunal did not find any such strong enough circumstance. As a matter of fact it observed that the defects were of a grave nature and consequently the assessee s contention did not deserve a more considerate treatment. In the area of assessment of turnover, the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless demonstrable perversity is established or other error made out, this Court will be chary of interference in revision. On that ground we decline to entertain the tax revision cases. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 376 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and the Schedule to equate cotton waste with cotton merely because cotton waste can also be sometimes used for the manufacture of low count yarn, as has been done by the appellate authority. Thus, on the basis of the finding of the last fact finding authority, it must be held that the commodity purchased by the assessee could not be treated as inferior cotton and assessed at the point of last purchase. The Tribunal therefore was right in arriving at the conclusion that the assessee had purchased cotton waste which commodity is also known as waste cotton and was liable to pay tax only on the first sale point in the State under item 16 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and modifying the assessment of the assessee to the extent which has been indicated elsewhere in this order. No cause is made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal. These tax revision cases are therefore dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 375 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct of the imposition of the tax has to be looked into, irrespective of the fact as to how the tax has affected different traders, namely, those who import goods and those who purchase goods locally. See the observation made in Associated Tanners v. Commercial Tax Officer 1986 62 STC 1 (SC) at page 6 AIR 1987 SC 1922 in para 16, which was cited with approval in Sri Doki China Guruvulu Son Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1990 76 STC 235 (SC) at page 2401. We also do not feel called upon to express any opinion as to whether the notification in question is saved by article 305 to which effect also Shri Patnaik has advanced contention by stating that the notification having been issued in exercise of the power conferred by section 8 of the Act, the same has to be regarded as a part of the Act, which is an existing law. 7.. In view of what is stated above, we do not find any force in the application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. B.N. DASH. J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 374 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held that Once it is found that the Revenue was not entitled to levy the tax which it purported to levy as purchase tax on the raw material, there can be no question of imposition of penalty or interest on the unpaid amount of tax. Therefore, the action taken in exercise of power under section 10(6) and section 11-D of the Act cannot be allowed to stand and must be set aside. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In the result the writ petition is allowed and orders, annexure P-1, dated October 19, 1987, passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cumAssessing Authority, Rajpura, respondent No. 2 and annexure P-2 dated December 27, 1989, passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, respondent No. 3, are set aside. Any recovery made under the impugned orders will be refunded within a period of three months from today. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 373 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the petitioner and whether the petitioner was in a position to make the deposit required of him. It is well-established that when an authority or court arrives at a decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or taking into account the matters which are partly relevant and partly irrelevant to the question for consideration, then in such a situation the decision as a whole is vitiated for it is impossible to say as to what extent the mind of the court or authority was affected by the irrelevant considerations. As the Tribunal has failed to consider the matter in its proper perspective, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, rejecting the appeal, is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to restore the petitioner s appeal to its original number and to decide it afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in this order. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Legislature as well as the rule-making authority was simply for use..........in the manufacture........of goods for sale without any addition of words indicating that the sale must be by any particular individual. The Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of this Court in Navsari Cotton Silk Mills Co. s case 1976 37 STC 140, observed that it should be deemed to have been overruled by that decision. In view of the direct decision of the Supreme Court on the point, it will have to be held that the assessee in this case had not committed any breach of the declarations made in form C by using the goods purchased against those forms in processing the goods of other parties, which were meant for sale by those parties. In the result, question No. 3 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not answered as it is not necessary to answer them. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference.
-
1991 (3) TMI 371 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... turnover of these items cannot be subjected to tax under section 5(3)(a) of the Act if the wheat out of which the said items are prepared, had already suffered tax as declared goods. 13.. In the result, we make the following order (i) The writ petitions are allowed (ii) A writ of mandamus shall issue (a) directing the respondents not to treat atta, maida and soji of wheat, as goods different from wheat, and (b) directing the respondents not to levy tax under section 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Act on atta, maida and soji produced out of wheat on the sale turnover of which tax has been paid under section 5(4) of the Karnataka Act (c) directing the respondents to modify the impugned order of assessment in accordance with law and in conformity with this order and to refund or adjust the amount becoming refundable, in the light of this order, if the tax has already been collected under the impugned orders. (iii) The parties shall bear their costs themselves. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 370 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e to the definition of word drug contained in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 11.. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the sales of cotton rolled bandages were sales of drug and medicine covered by entry 26(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the said Act, and they were not the sales of handloom fabrics of all varieties covered by entry 33 of Schedule I to the said Act so as to be free from all taxes. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the opponent s sales of cotton rolled bandages were sales of handloom fabrics of all varieties covered by entry 33 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and they were not sales of drugs and medicines covered by entry 26(1) of Schedule II, Part A to the said Act. 12.. We answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the State and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (3) TMI 369 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sub-section (iv), clause (i), of section 14 of the Act, 1956. It takes me to the additional plea raised in the revision filed for the assessment year 1974-75 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The department took up the plea that the Tribunal was wrong in deciding the appeal without disposing of grounds Nos. 3 and 5, having been raised in the memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal. These grounds having not been disposed of by the Tribunal require consideration. In the result, the revisions filed for the assessment year 1973-74 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the revision filed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75 are dismissed, and the revision pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act is allowed and the case is sent back on a limited point to the Tribunal with a direction that it will redecide the case after disposing of the grounds Nos. 3 and 5, as raised in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 368 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... for some happenings in the month of July, 1987. The eligibility certificate granted for the period in March 1984 cannot be cancelled for some happenings in the month of July, 1987. On this reason alone, irrespective of other grounds made out by the parties at the time of making submissions before this Tribunal, the impugned orders of the learned Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are to be set aside. The application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated July 10, 1990, passed by the respondent No. 2 as well as the impugned order dated March 31, 1988 passed by the respondent No. 1 are set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the other applications by the applicants for renewal of eligibility certificate for the periods after March 31, 1984 in accordance with law within three months from this date. The main application is, thus, disposed of. We make no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 367 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ayon, artificial silk or woollen fabrics, dyed, bleached or printed. 20.. It is, therefore, clear from item 67 that it includes sale of cotton fabrics dyed, bleached or printed. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the processes of starching, calendering are not included in this item 67, and therefore, sales of bookbinding cloth would not fall within entry 67 so as to earn the benefit of exemption. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to decide in this case as to whether bookbinding cloth would fall within item 67 of the Government Notification issued under section 49 of the said Act in view of our finding that it falls within the definition of cotton fabric as contained in item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 21.. In the result, we answer question numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the negative, i.e., against the department and in favour of the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs. References answered in the negative.
-
1991 (3) TMI 366 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he customers and did not merely act as agents of the said company. See 1988 70 STC 107 at 112 (SC) (Alwaye Agencies v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax) . 28.. There are striking similarities between annexure A agreement and the agreement which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Alwaye Agencies case 1988 70 STC 107. Applying the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in that case we have no hesitation to hold that the clauses in annexure A taken in its entirety are consistent with the assessee-company, being a seller of the goods supplied by Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and quite inconsistent with they being an agent for the sale. We are therefore of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in holding that the assessee was only an agent. In the result these tax revision cases are allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. The Appellate Tribunal shall amend the appellate orders in the appeals accordingly. Petitions allowed.
........
|
