|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 240 Records
-
1993 (1) TMI 276 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ied the rule of thumb and the assessment order does not refer to any material worth the name. The Tribunal was in error in restoring the assessment by making sweeping remarks noticed earlier in a cursory manner which do not show any application of mind. It has already been stated that the order of the appellate authority in dealing this aspect of the matter was left out of consideration by the Tribunal which was not proper. In view of what has been stated above, the order of the Tribunal giving rise to this revision cannot be maintained and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with the direction that while giving effect to this judgment the Tribunal shall restore the appeal giving rise to this revision to its original number and decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above in accordance with law. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 275 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y satisfactory evidence to prove that the turnover under dispute is a branch transfer. Even before the first appellate authority, the assessee could not do so. No attempt was made even before the Appellate Tribunal to substantiate the plea. The Appellate Tribunal rightly rejected the plea of the assessee, that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the assessee to represent its case. 8.. No other point was urged in these revisions. Having found that the transfers covered by the disputed turnover are inter-State sales, the Appellate Tribunal gave an opportunity to the assessee to produce C forms within one month from the date of receipt of the order. In all the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal afforded an opportunity to the assessee to lessen the burden of taxation by producing C forms. That is an equitable relief properly afforded by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 9.. We see no merit in this tax revision cases. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 274 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on about the certificate in question and no assistance is available from the said orders. Since the Tribunal had not considered the matter in its right perspective, and has chosen to reject the relevant evidence cursorily and in a summary manner, it appears equitable and in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent it affirms the assessment of turnover of Rs. 4,62,200 in respect of sale of gur and to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with the direction that while giving effect to this judgment, the Sales Tax Tribunal shall restore the appeal giving rise to this revision to its original number and shall decide the matter afresh to the extent indicated above and in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made above. The revision succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. Stay order, if any, shall stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 273 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dvocate for the applicant at this stage does not press this question for our decision. Hence, this question requires to be replied and answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In the result, for question No. (1) we hold that the sales of maleic resins made by the applicant were covered under entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Consequently, for question No. (3) also, we hold that the Tribunal was justified and right in law in appreciating the evidentiary value of all the documents produced and relied on by the applicant and in recording findings that the sales of maleic resins made by the applicant were covered under entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Question No. (2) is also answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1993 (1) TMI 272 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be taken against the company during the pendency of the inquiry under section 16 or under preparation of a scheme or implementation of the sanctioned scheme. Therefore, even for recovery of sales tax dues no coercive measure can be taken when the matter is before the Board unless the consent of the Board is taken. The result will be that even for the recovery of sales tax dues, if any, against the demand raised no coercive steps like sale of the properties can be taken till the matter is before the Board without the consent of the Board and if the sales tax department wants to take coercive measure like sale of the properties, the consent of the Board has to be obtained. 9.. Consequently, I allow this writ petition only to the extent that no coercive measure shall be taken for the recovery of the sales tax, if any, till the matter is before the Board in view of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Costs made easy. Writ petition allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 271 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d above. The explanation added in 1986 which is being relied upon by the petitioner in this case is only explanatory and, as such, it could not be considered to be prospective. It became a part and parcel of the enactment. It was added to clarify something which was hidden in section 5CC. Therefore, it was retrospective in operation and could apply to the cases pending before the sales tax authorities. An explanation is to be read to harmonise with and clear up ambiguity in the section. An explanation is added more than often to allay groundless apprehensions. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed and the order dated April 29, 1985, of the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue is set aside and the orders dated October 8, 1980 of the single Member of the Board of Revenue and dated July 6, 1976, of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals II), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, are restored. The petitioner will be entitled to the cost which is fixed at Rs. 500. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 270 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it P4 the penalty levied is Rs. 2,80,000 whereas the tax evaded is Rs. 2,57,550. The Deputy Commissioner has independently evaluated the question and for the reasons recorded the penalty amount was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000. The Board of Revenue did not interfere in the quantum obviously for the reason first revisional authority has applied his mind to the facts of the case and given due relief . After anxiously considering all the aspects, this Court finds it difficult to interfere in the quantum. The penalty levied is reasonable and rational. This is a case where the assessee had collected tax during the assessment year and it was paid long after the expiry of the assessment year. It was also found that the escapement was due to wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. In that background the quantum of penalty fixed by the authorities below is only to be confirmed. No other points remain to be considered. The original petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 269 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... were specifically mentioned in exhibit P1 notice. No such demand was made till the finalisation of the penalty proceedings as per exhibit P3. The first respondent has stated in exhibit P3 that the assessee has not made any request for cross-examination of the seller of the goods. In that situation, the contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected. 15.. No argument is advanced in relation to the quantum of penalty fixed by the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner has reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,000 in order to meet the ends of justice. The quantum of penalty levied is reasonable and rational and hence it is upheld. Further the assessee has not exhausted the remedy as against exhibit P4 order by way of revision before the Board of Revenue. The impugned orders are well within the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned. Under these circumstances exhibits P3 and P4 are not liable to be set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 268 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he meaning of the goods mentioned in entry 72. Viewed in the light of the heading and the context in which the word polish is used in entry 72 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, we are of the view that the word polishes , occurring in entry 72 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, will not take in shoe polish . It will not be an item of goods similar to paints, colours, lacquers, varnishes, etc. Therefore, we hold that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the words shoe polish will be taken in by the word polishes occurring in entry 72 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the light of this, the second sales of shoe polish by the respondent-assessee will be taxable, as held by the assessing authority. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside to this extent. The assessing authority will give effect to this decision in the assessment order. T.R.C. is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 267 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... missible in making best judgment assessment. It is true that in fixing the estimate in a best judgment assessment, one of the basis adopted is the multiple of running stock. We again stress the fact that it is not the sole basis. If circumstances in a particular case do not warrant the adoption of that basis, but any other alternative basis, it is open to the fact finding authority to make a best judgment assessment on any other tenable or valid alternative basis. We hold so. 6.. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. In choosing one of the alternatives, the Appellate Tribunal-the final fact-finding authority-cannot be said to have committed any error of law in fixing the estimated turnover in a best judgment assessment. We are of the view that the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated February 22, 1991, does not merit interference in revision. The tax revision cases are without merit. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 266 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld not be deprived of exemption and, therefore, we find that the inclusion of the oil extracting or manufacturing industry at item No. 21 declaring such industries to be not eligible for the tax incentive under annexure B cannot be allowed to be given effect to and acted upon against those industries of this category which had been duly installed and in which the production had also been started prior to May 7, 1990 or even before March 31, 1992, the date up to which the schemes were to be operative. We, therefore, allow all these seven writ petitions and direct that anything contained in the impugned notification dated May 7, 1990, would not come in the way of the petitioners claiming exemption of the sales tax under the Sales Tax Incentive Schemes of 1987 and 1989 notified, in cases where the industries had been installed and production was started prior to March 31, 1992. The writ petitions are allowed as indicated above with no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 265 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llate Tribunal was justified in holding that no transfer of property takes place in the display of fireworks. As the explosives are consumed, nothing tangible remains, in which property could be transferred. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the display of fireworks, the explosives are spent and do not remain, once the display takes place. In the process of execution of the work, the goods themselves (explosives) ceased to exist. No tangible property remains. So, there could be no transfer of property. We concur with the decision of the Patna High Court in Pest Control India Ltd. v. Union of India 1989 75 STC 188. There can be no transfer of property unless the goods themselves exist. That is not the case herein. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal taking the said view is justified in law. 5.. The common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated May 17, 1991, does not merit interference in revisions. The revisions are dismissed, in limine. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (1) TMI 264 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fixtures and fittings and other accessories also would be covered by it. Similarly, the fixtures and fittings to the fluorescent tubes without fluorescent tubes, would also be covered by the said entry. This entry is an inclusive one. In its ambit, it includes fluorescent tubes as well as its component parts such as chokes, starters, fixtures and fittings and other accessories. In the present case, the word including in entry 92 clearly suggests that it is used for enlargement of scope of the words domestic appliances and fluorescent tubes . In this view of the matter, it cannot be stated that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the sales of strips made by the applicant during the assessment period are covered under entry 92 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (1) TMI 263 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct, 1956, and not on the basis of various sub-clauses of clause (29-A) of article 366 as far as Central sales tax is concerned. (7) The taxing authorities shall determine in respect of which goods, the property passes to the contractee in terms of sub-clause (ii) of clause (j) or clause (1) of section 2 of the HGST Act, 1973, in the facts and circumstances of each case. (8) When the question is raised, the taxing authorities have to determine in the facts and circumstances of each case whether the transaction is an intraState sale or an inter-State sale. (9) Exemption from sales tax (subject to the conditions, if any, mentioned therein) under sections 6 and 15 read with Schedule B to HGST Act, 1973, is with reference to goods as such goods. The exemption does not apply if any case falls in any of the sub-clauses of clause (1). We accordingly dispose of these petitions in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (1) TMI 262 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly calculated interest on the basis of quarterly return submitted by the applicant. Further, as the revenue authorities have not moved for enhancement of interest for the particular quarter, it was not open to the Tribunal to enhance the interest by directing the applicant to pay interest on hypothetical amount of Rs. 69,71,294 instead of Rs. 20,70,778 as directed by the Sales Tax Officer. In this view of the matter, question No. 5 is required to be answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue that is to say, for the months of January, 1981 and February, 1981, interest should be levied only on the basis of Rs. 20,70,778 per month as calculated by the Sales Tax Officer. In the result, we answer the questions Nos. 1 to 4 in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 5 is answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1993 (1) TMI 261 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the department alternative statutory remedy is available, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we feel that interest of justice would be best served if the assessment proceedings are nullified, and the petitioners are asked to appear before the Sales Tax Officer, Ward B, Bhubaneswar I Circle on February 9, 1993, when the latter should indicate the materials necessitating reopening of assessments and thereafter, proceed in the matter. The orders of assessment vide annexure 5 in each case are quashed. It is open to the petitioners to take all available objections to the reopening of the proceeding. If such objection is raised, the Sales Tax Officer shall deal with the same in accordance with law. If there is no appearance by the petitioner on the date fixed, it shall be open to the assessing officer to complete the assessments ex parte. The writ applications are accordingly disposed of. No costs. K.C. JAGADEB ROY, J.-I agree.
-
1993 (1) TMI 260 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to succeed on the first question however, they fail in their contention as to the interpretation of section 6(ii) of the State Act. 45.. The first question raised by the petitioners involve investigation of certain facts to attract the provisions of section 5(3)(c), and proviso thereto of the State Act. We direct the assessing authorities to investigate the relevant facts and make an appropriate order in the light of the observations contained in this order. In all these cases, show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners and the matter is still pending at that stage the petitioners are permitted to file objections to the show cause notices within eight weeks from today. The concerned authority shall examine the facts whether the cases of the petitioners come under proviso to section 5(3)(c) of the Act and if so, the proceedings to levy tax under section 6 of the State Act shall be dropped. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 259 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me to time, and accepted the finding and view of the Tribunal that dried chicory roots could not be said to be edible tubers. In fact the assessee had not purchased tubers what came to be purchased was dried chicory roots. Since dried chicory roots were not tubers fit for growing of fresh plants, nor did they fall in the category of flower, vegetable seeds, hemp, bulbs, tubers and plants, the Division Bench held that the dried chicory roots which were the subject-matter of sale transactions would not fall under entry No. 8 or entry No. 23 of Schedule I as then existing. The same principle would apply in the present case also. 5.. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that dried bits of chicory roots would not be covered by entry No. 23 or entry No. 8 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and we answer the reference accordingly. 6.. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1993 (1) TMI 258 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case. 39.. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. In view of this settled legal position, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the contention of the opponents that section 55 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act read with rule 49 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules contemplates reasons to be given while disposing of an application for remission of tax. In the result, the question under reference is answered in the negative i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1993 (1) TMI 257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an be also a registered dealer and, when a dealer purchases goods from a person who is not a registered dealer, then, under section 15 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the dealer is bound to pay purchase tax unless the goods are resold. For the purposes of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the registered dealer, which is partnership firm, would be a different entity from its partners. Further, there is no bar under any statutory provisions that the partnership firm cannot enter into the transaction of purchase or sale of movable property with its partners. Hence, in our view, the Tribunal erred in holding that the value of groundnut seeds of Rs. 96,460 cannot be treated as purchases made by the opponent-firm from the partners and hence purchase tax levied thereon should be removed. In the result, we answer the question under reference in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
........
|
