|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 279 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondents that the definition of designated area under the scheme was understood by all concerned in the same way as discussed above and in fact benefit thereof was allowed to all concerned who had, taken effective steps to set up a new industrial unit before June 15, 1982, as per clarificatory letter, dated May 16, 1982, annexure III to the affidavit-inreply. Definition of designated area has not been altered in the scheme. Without amending the scheme which is in the nature of subordinate legislation, the meaning of definition cannot be altered by executive fiat. 9.. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders revising eligibility certificate and of curtailing tax benefits are hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that the respondent-authorities will grant benefit in tax exemption in accordance with law to the petitioner. There will be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax must be clear, nothing can be added to it or detracted from it. The ratio in none of these cases will improve the position of the petitioner for each of those cases turned on the peculiar expression used in those cases. The link between the sales tax enactments and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 cannot be ignored and they form one system of taxation as envisaged under article 286 of the Constitution. Therefore, under the scheme of taxation, if the goods had suffered tax under one enactment, the same goods should not be subjected to suffer tax under another enactment. When the goods in question in the present case had not suffered tax at all, it must be held that they had not been subjected to tax under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. In that view of the matter, we find the reliance placed by the learned counsel is futile. 10.. In the result, we dismiss these petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 277 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 877 of 1994 the petitioner claims that appropriate directions may be issued to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount by endorsing the fixed deposit receipt in favour of the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the statutory provision under which the second respondent awarder was deducting tax at source and keeping the same in joint fixed deposit has been declared invalid by this Court, I do not find any reason why the original petition shall not be allowed. Accordingly, following the judgment of this Court Reported as Builders Association of India v. State of Kerala 1995 98 STC 490 (Ker). in Builders Association of India v. State of Kerala 1995 98 STC 490, I allow this original petition and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount by endorsing fixed deposit receipts in favour of the petitioner. Original petition is allowed as above. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 276 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... , however, submits that the reduced penalty of Rs. 20,000 is appropriate in this case. After considering rival contentions of the parties, we are of the opinion that a token penalty of Rs. 5,000 will meet the ends of justice in this case in view of the explanation offered. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned orders dated August 24, 1987, September 14, 1987 and July 14, 1992 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal below respectively are modified to the extent that the amount of penalty will be Rs. 5,000 only. If the applicant has already paid any amount of penalty in excess of Rs. 5,000, the excess amount should be refunded to the applicant within a period of four weeks hence. If, however, no penalty has yet been paid, the respondents may take steps according to law for recovery of penalty of Rs. 5,000 only. Accordingly, the main application is disposed of without any order for costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 275 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all the other months, the returns have been filed within the month in which the returns were due and the returns were accepted by the department. It was also submitted that the turnover determined under the CST Act is lower than the turnover submitted by the assessee. Since the reason for the delay in filing the returns was beyond the control of the assessee, the delay in filing the returns was condoned. Similar questions came up for consideration in the case of the same assessee in T.C.Nos. 1386 and 1363 of 1984 wherein this court accepted the reasons given by the assessee., and condoned the delay in filing the returns by adopting the same reasons. Considering the reasons given by the assessee in the present case. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act is in order. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 7.. In the result, this revision is dismissed. No Costs. petition dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er which was cancelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in its entirety is maintainable. 5.. In so far as the merits of case, in levying penalty under section 16(2) of the Act, is concerned, it was represented that the turnover of Rs. 1,12,664 was assessed on the basis of book turnover. The assessed turnover was stated to be found in the books of accounts and the accounts were accepted by the department. In such a case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar and Sons 1971 28 STC 700 penalty is not exigible under section 16(2) of the Act. This situation was not disputed seriously. Therefore, on merits, penalty under section 16(2) of the Act is not exigible in the case of the assessee. Under such circumstances, we have no other alternative, but to dismiss the revision filed by the department. Accordingly the tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 273 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... value of goods sold, viz., Rs. 94,000 against the purchase value of goods sold, viz., Rs. 97,807.50. No reasons or circumstance acceptable were furnished by the assessee for the low sales turnover below the purchase value. The details of the stock in respect of the items were not made available before the assessing authority or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the assessing officer has rightly estimated the total and taxable turnover. The Tribunal has given a finding that the inspection conducted revealed an excess stock which also shows that there were unaccounted purchases and the resultant suppression in taxable sales. Considering all these facts and circumstances the Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the assessing authority. 4.. In view of these factual findings by the Tribunal we do not find any question of law that arises for consideration in this tax revision case. Accordingly we dismiss the tax revision case. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e applicant did not have knowledge of, or was not in a position to produce, the facts, the applicant can avail himself of the remedy of review. In either event, the facts must be such which came to the knowledge of the assessee subsequently and which could not be produced after the exercise of due diligence. The requirement of exercise of due diligence applies to both the limits, viz., knowledge and inability to produce. None of these conditions prescribed under section 36(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was satisfied by the assessee for the purpose of reviewing the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal was not correct in reviewing the earlier order passed by itself. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in the review application stands set aside and the original order of the Tribunal in confirming the penalty levied by the authorities below stands restored. 6.. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion warranting levy of penalty. Therefore, on the merits, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the penalty is not leviable in the case of the assessee. No doubt, the Tribunal pointed out that since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had cancelled the penalty in its entirety, no enhancement petition would lie. In view of the fact that the penalty was cancelled on consideration of the merits, we are not making any pronouncement on this question, namely, whether the enhancement petition can be filed while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the penalty in its entirety. 9.. In that view of the matter, the revision filed in T.C. No. 1434 of 1984 relating to the levy of tax on the sale value of packing materials, stands allowed, after setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect and T.C. No. 1433 of 1984 filed against the enhancement of penalty and expected turnover, stands dismissed. T.C. No. 1434 of 1984 allowed. T.C. No. 1433 of 1984 dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 270 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essing authority could not have dealt with that aspect after remand. Though we are inclined to take the view that even after passing of the order of assessment after remand, it was open to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise that power in respect of the original order of assessment and bring to tax the escaped turnover, but then it must be within the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (4). Inasmuch as the reasons for assessing or not assessing the escaped turnover, could not be discerned from the second order, i.e., the order passed after remand, for the reasons we have already mentioned above, the period of limitation could not be computed from the date of service of the second order. If the date of service of the first order is taken into consideration, the order is admittedly beyond limitation. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the T.R.C. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 269 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the State but before completing the assessment, the assessee filed the revised return on November 24, 1981. This revised return was not considered by the assessing officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remitted back this issue to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to levy penalty at 2 per cent for each month instead of 50 per cent. However, on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal pointed out that since the assessing officer failed to consider the revised return filed by the assessee, no penalty is exigible under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. Since the assessee filed revised return on November 24, 1981, before completing the assessment, rectifying the mistake occurred in the original return, penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act is not exigible. Therefore, we accept the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. 10.. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 268 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... drafts for refundable amounts within the periods specified in judgment without any application from the applicants. Therefore, it is clarified and directed that the refundable amounts shall be refunded by the respondents without any application from the respective the applicants and such refund shall be made not by way of refund payment orders, but by way of cheques or bank drafts less exchange rates for obtaining bank drafts. The prayer for stay is rejected in respect of case Nos. RN-170 of 1993 and RN-124 of 1994, since certain concessions were made about the applicants in those cases. We are not granting any stay on the decision that rule 48M(3) is ultra vires the 1941 Act and the Constitution of India. Except the above, there will be a stay of all other orders in the other two cases namely, RN-148 of 1993 and RN-152 of 1993 for a period of 12 weeks hence. The above order of stay will also operate only in respect of awarding of costs in RN-170 of 1993 and RN-124 of 1994.
-
1995 (4) TMI 267 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the assessee for the assessment years under consideration. 11.. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the decision reported in Joint Commercial Tax Officer-II, Tuticorin v. Ekambareeswarar Coffee and Tea Works 1991 83 STC 457 wherein this Court held that the order of assessment made after assessing the turnover which had escaped assessment includes within it the original turnover as also the original assessment. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in setting aside the assessments made and the penalty orders passed by the D.C.T.O. II, Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai, under section 16 and 16(2) of the Act for the assessment years under consideration. In that view of the matter, the common order passed by the Tribunal in both the assessment years under consideration is set aside and the orders passed by the D.C.T.O. II, Enforcement Wing, Tiruvannamalai, stand restored. Both the revisions are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 266 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... conuts as fresh fruits is disapproved. We approve the decision of the said Tribunal in the case of Krishna Coconut Co. reported in (1981) 14 STA 348, in which 1973 32 STC 228 (Mad.) (Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Hameed Trading Company) was followed and it was held that such coconuts were mere fruits attracting sales tax at the general rate. 11.. In the result, the impugned order dated June 10, 1994 passed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner is modified and the impugned order of assessment dated June 18, 1992 for the period of four quarters ending Chaitra, 1394 B.S. is confirmed in so far as the said orders relate to levy of tax at the rate of 8 per cent on sales of dehusked ripe coconuts with kernels and water contained therein. The application is thus disposed of. No order is made as to costs. On oral prayer, operation of the judgment and order is stayed for twelve weeks. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 265 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... any dealer (total tax means sales tax cum turnover tax and any additional tax or surcharge of that nature) exceeds 4 per cent of the basic or actual price of the declared goods concerned, then they are directed to exclude such amount of tax from the finally calculated total amount of tax payable by the dealer so that the net amount of total tax payable by the dealer does not exceed 4 per cent of the basic price or actual price of the concerned declared goods. When the above directions are followed, the impugned provisions of the 1956 Act will be intra vires section 15(a) of the 1956 Act and article 286(3) of the Constitution and thus the validity and constitutionality of the impugned provisions are saved. Accordingly, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to follow the modality outlined above. The application is thus disposed of without any order for costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).I agree. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 264 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n of limitation, we are not required to enter into the question whether the sales of movables were in course of business and incidental or ancillary to the business, or those were in the course of closure of the business. There, Mr. Goswami has argued by referring to paragraph 5 of the deed of agreement dated March 25, 1974 that the sales of the movables had actually taken place prior to the sales of the immovables and prior to execution of the deed of agreement and, therefore, the sales have taken place in course of business and not in course of closure thereof. But as already said, we are not going into that question, because the application succeeds on the question of limitation. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned assessment purportedly dated August 25, 1993, for the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1975 and the demand notice in form VII being Memo No. 7349 dated on October 7, 1994, are quashed. No order is made as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 263 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ng works contract. Moreover, having already been registered as a dealer with effect from September 15, 1993, there was no question of violation of section 7(1). According to Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned State Representative, the Commercial Tax Officer might issue a notice under section 14(1) like this for investigation on the basis of the seized books of account. But the notice does not speak of such an investigation. As the notice stands, it could not have been issued to the applicant on the basis that he was violating sections 7(1) and 6D. Accordingly, this notice is also invalid. In the result, the application is allowed the seizure of two books of account on March 7, 1994/March 15, 1994 and the notice dated June 9, 1994, issued purportedly under section 14(1) of the 1941 Act are quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to forthwith return the seized books of account to the applicant. The main application is thus disposed of without any order for costs. Application allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 262 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 3 of the Rules are not ultra vires the Constitution. We have already indicated in the preceding paragraph that the impugned assessment order and the impugned notice of demand dated June 24, 1992, have to be quashed. The present application can be disposed of without examining the respective contentions of the parties on the constitutional validity of section 17 of the Act and rule 23 of the Rules. We, therefore, leave the matter only on recording the broad respective contentions of the parties. 22.. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned assessment order dated June 24, 1992, and the demand notice in form X dated June 24, 1992 demanding a sum of Rs. 50,52,183 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. On the verbal prayer of the respondents learned Advocate the operation of the judgment and order is stayed for twelve weeks. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).I agree. Application allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of rule 24(8) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. In view of these facts that on the date that is on August 4, 1981, when the assessee collected the tax of Rs. 30,360 it is collected without the authority of the law. Therefore, penalty is exigible under section 22(2) of the Act. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the transaction carried out by the assessee being a single transaction. We are of the opinion that penalty at the rate of 100 per cent of the tax payable by the assessee would be sufficient and would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we re-fix the penalty levied by the Tribunal at 100 per cent, namely Rs. 30,360 on the tax payable by the assessee. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalties levied under section 12(3) and under section 22(2) of the Act stand set aside and the revision stands allowed. However there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 260 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... However, in view of the finding that the orders were barred by limitation, it is not necessary to go into these aspects. 46.. In the result, the application is allowed. The order of assessment dated June 11, 1993 and the order for determination of interest dated June 11, 1993 made by the respondent No. 1 (Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment Wing-I, Group B) in respect of the applicant for the period of four quarters ending December 31, 1986, are quashed as being barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. There will be no order for cost. Order of the Tribunal 47. In view of the opinion of the majority, the application is dismissed without any order for costs. Interim order stands vacated. On the verbal submission of Mr. Asit Chakraborty, learned advocate for the applicant, for granting stay for 12 weeks as the Supreme Court remains closed during summer vacation, the operation of this judgment and order will remain stayed for 12 weeks from this date. Application dismissed.
........
|
