|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 630 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 1067 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... March 31, 1986. 15.. There is no question of any bona fide or mens rea for imposition of penalty under section 4-B(6) of the Act as section 4-B(6) does not mention without reasonable cause being there, unlike mention of such words in other penal provisions of the Act. In the last, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have determined the exact quantity of paddy purchased by the applicant without payment of tax and the quantity of rice manufactured and sold on consignment basis outside U.P. while determining the quantum of penalty. No such argument appears to have been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant before the Tribunal and thus, the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be permitted to raise the said argument for the first time before this Court in revision under section 11 of the Act. 16.. In the result, all the three revision petitions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1066 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 7.. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Indra Industries reported in 2001 122 STC 100 2000 UPTC 472 has laid down that the circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is binding upon the tax authorities. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in the case of Raghu Nath Laxmi Narain Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in 2000 UPTC 554. Thus while upholding the order of the Tribunal I direct the applicant to make an application before the assessing authority for claiming remission in pursuance of the circular dated January 15, 1986 in respect of the tax imposing on the purchase of foodgrains of Rs. 17,68,084. The assessing authority will decide the matter of remittance expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date. The applicant makes an application along with the certified copy of this order before him. Subject to the aforesaid observation the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1065 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which has been confirmed by the Tribunal by the impugned order. 4.. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the consumption of electricity as disclosed by the applicant at 7692 units has been accepted. Thus, the production has to be worked out on the basis of consumption of electricity at 7692 units. However, neither the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) nor the Tribunal has given any basis for fixing the turnover at Rs.8,30,590. Thus the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to redetermine the turnover of the applicant on the basis of the consumption of electricity at 7692 units. 5.. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1064 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... o augmenting the State s revenue and to simplifying the procedure for levy of tax. Therefore third and fourth issues are also held against the petitioner. 20.. Having regard to our findings on the first four issues we have no other alternative except to dismiss all the Original Petitions. The plea of all the petitioners are rejected. The provisions are upheld as intra vires and valid. The proceeding of the respective assessing authorities are upheld. The petitioners are left to their statutory remedies under the Act. The time taken during the pendency of the Original Petitions shall be excluded while calculating the period of limitation of filing appeals. All interim orders are vacated and the Original Petitions are dismissed. And this tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 25th day of August, 2000. Original petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1063 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... latitude where measures of economic and fiscal regulation are concerned. 11.. In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Arya Vaidya Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu 1989 73 STC 346 (1989) 2 SCC 285 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In that decision it was held by the Supreme Court that while it is open to the Legislature or State Government to select different rates of tax for different categories, where the commodities belong to the same class or category there must be a rational basis for discriminating between one commodity and another for the purpose of imposing tax (vide para 6) (page 350 in STC). We therefore, hold that merely because of different compositions of N.P.K. discrimination could not have been made against N.P.K. 23 23 0 sold by the petitioner. Hence, we allow the petition and direct that the respondents shall not realise tax on the sale of N.P.K. 23 23 0 from the petitioner from April 10, 1995 to March 31, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1062 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ough that order did not suffer from any mistake in the context of the points actually raised by the applicant before him. 11.. In the result, the application is allowed in part. The seizure is held valid, but the imposition of penalty is held unwarranted. The order imposing penalty is therefore quashed. The respondents are directed to release the seized consignment forthwith. No order is made regarding costs. 12.. After the judgment is delivered, Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative, prays for liberty of this Tribunal to draw fresh penalty proceeding according to law. The other side objects to such a liberty. The question of giving liberty does not arise, because the respondents are free to take appropriate action within their jurisdiction, as the law permits and the same is not dependent on any liberty to be given by the Tribunal. Hence the prayer is not entertained because of its being unnecessary. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed in part.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1061 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to first examine the plea of the petitioners that they had already submitted forms LL and E though belatedly and, therefore, they are entitled to claim exemption from payment of market fee and rural development fund. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions (i) within one month from today, the petitioners should produce before the competent authority of respondent No. 3 to show that they had submitted forms LL and E under the 1962 and 1987 Rules respectively (ii) respondent No. 3 shall examine such evidence and pass appropriate order within next one month keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ganesh Rice and General Mills AIR 1999 SC 378 and (iii) if the petitioners fail to produce evidence regarding the submission of the prescribed forms, respondent No. 3 shall be free to recover the market fee and rural development fund with interest. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1060 - SUPREME COURT
Detention orders - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The petitioner had sought to contend that the order which was passed was vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds but there is no material for making such an averment for the simple reason that the order of detention and the grounds on which the said order is passed has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has not yet been executed. The petitioner does not have a copy of the same and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the non-existent order was passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1059 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in case of an order of detention by an officer non-communication to the detenu that he has a right of making a representation to the Detaining Authority constitutes an infraction of a valuable right of the detenu under Article 23(5) of the Constitution, and as such, vitiates the order of detention?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It goes without saying that even under the Maharashtra Act a detenu will have a right to make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government and consequently non-communication of the fact to the detenu that he has a right to make representation to the detaining authority would constitute an infraction of the valuable constitutional right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and such failure would make the order of detention invalid.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1058 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... bserved that the capital gains arising out of the land are long-term capital gain while capital gains arising out of building are short-term capital gains. In the said case, the site and the building were treated as separate for the purpose of capital gains. 8. In the light of above discussion, as well as in the well established legal position CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha 1993 201 ITR 442 (Raj.), we are of the view that though in the case of sale of land and building constructed on it as a single asset even then the site and the building are to be treated as separate for the purpose of ascertaining the capital gains in each case as long-term gains and short-term gains. Therefore, the capital gains arising on both assets have to be worked out separately. 9. By taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity with the order of the CIT (Appeals) which is hereby upheld. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1057 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rates of interest charged by banking companies not to be subject to scrutiny by Courts ... ... ... ... ..... d down in State Bank of India rsquo s case (supra) where the Supreme Court has observed that charging of compound interest by the bank cannot be said to be excessive on the amount advanced against mortgage in view of the provisions of section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, it cannot be said that the awarding of interest at the contractual rate to the bank is illegal. So, this revision is allowed and the awarding of interest to the bank by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal, not at the agreed rate of interest but at the rate of 6.5 per cent cannot be sustained. The bank had to be allowed the agreed rate of interest from the date of suit till realisation on the principal sum adjudged which means the amount of loan originally advanced plus the interest that accrued thereon till the institution of suit (in this case application under section 8(a)( i) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973).
-
2000 (8) TMI 1056 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... ave not been gone into, therefore, the impugned order is not a speaking order. In view of this, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for de novo consideration, who shall grant a full opportunity to the appellants to demonstrate that all these three units are independent units and that the appellant Sounderarajan was carrying out manufacturing activity and the resultant goods manufactured by him were within the exemption limit and that there was only clearance of raw material to the job workers and what was received back from the job workers was fully finished goods and were handed over to the customers. Further plea that they have received old item for repair is also required to be considered and all the aspects raised in defence have to be independently examined and detailed findings arrived at. The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration in the light of the above observation.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1055 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... tion. Since I have already recorded above that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, notice cannot be deemed to have been actually served on the respondent, it is, therefore, futile to proceed any further with this petition. Accordingly this petition is dismissed, as the statutory notice has not been served by the petitioner before filing the instant petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has brought to my notice that the petitioner has approached the Registrar of Companies and has been informed of the latest address of the respondent. He further states that he would now serve the notice on the respondent as contemplated under section 434 at its present address. In case the petitioner is able to effect service of the notice under section 434 upon the respondent even after disposal of this petition, it would be open to the petitioner to revive this petition by placing on record the averments of having effected service on the respondent.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1054 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sick industrial company - Winding up of ... ... ... ... ..... ons as to advertisement, etc., have no leg to stand. 20. This proposition of law will not in any way concern with the application of mind of the Court independently in case of recommendation made by the BIFR. The two aspects are totally different from each other when the earlier one is procedural and the later one is substantial. 21. As a result whereof the appeal should fail and, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, no order is passed as to costs. This order is passed by treating the appeal as on day rsquo s list by consent of the parties and when no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the same pending. Service of the notice of appeal stands waived. Undertaking, if any, in terms of the prayer(a) stands discharged. All formalities are dispensed with. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, connected application becomes infructuous and, accordingly, it is also dismissed as infructuous. All interim orders, if there be any, stand vacated. Tarun Chatterjee, J. - I agree.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1053 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Prospectus - Matters to be stated in - Petitioner-plaintiff ... ... ... ... ..... application, it is evidently clear that the plaintiff has rushed up to this court only to harass the first respondent and prevent it from public issue of shares, so that this company also will land in trouble. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that this is a frivolous application filed by the plaintiff only for the purpose of using the same as a lever to collect the money, since already the Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed an order restraining the first respondent from paying any money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not prepared to pay sufficient court fee and file a suit, but has adopted a short cut method as a test case and, as such, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to any indulgence from this court. 17. For the reasons stated above, Original Application No. 688 of 2000 is dismissed. Interim injunction already granted is vacated. Consequently, Application No. 3107 of 2000 is allowed. The first respondent is also entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1052 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up – Power of tribunal to stay winding-up ... ... ... ... ..... ain in a state of suspended animation. I order as under (1)The winding up order dated August 16, 1999, shall remain in abeyance till further orders. (2)Any of the creditors would be at liberty to approach this court for withdrawing the abeyance order in case such an exigency arises because of the company not honouring the settlements and defaulting in making payment as agreed upon. (3)The possession of the assets and properties of the company shall be delivered back by the official liquidator. (4)Any realisation made by the official liquidator shall be held by him till further orders of this court. He shall make a fixed deposit initially for a period of three months in Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad within a week from today. Thereafter he shall seek instructions of this court for further course to be adopted by him. He shall present a report before this court within two weeks after having complied with this direction. Application A-26 is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1051 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Oppression and Mismanagement, Directors - General powers of ... ... ... ... ..... and also a further amount towards the expenses for publishing notice etc. totalling Rupees 30,000 from its Bank/s for the purpose of depositing it in the registry. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 company states that the respondent No. 6 will deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000 in the Registry of this Court within 15 days. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 company has agreed to supply the names and present addresses of all the shareholders of the 425 shares of the company, to the Additional Registrar on or before 19-8-2000. 10.There shall be no order as to costs. The learned Counsel of the respondent No. 6 company prays for the respondent No. 6 company as well as for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that this order be stayed for three months to enable the contesting respondents to approach Hon rsquo ble the Supreme Court in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this request cannot be acceded to and is therefore, rejected. Order accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1050 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Preparation and sanction of schemes ... ... ... ... ..... interest with effect from 1-4-2000 on reduced balance basis till the final payment is made as directed in serial No. 6 below. 6.There shall be a moratorium for six months and the company shall pay the balance amount in 18 equal monthly instalments, the first of which would be paid on 31-3-2001 to each of the above creditors and the last one on 31-8-2002. 7.The company shall reimburse a sum of Rs. 22,940 to IIBI towards share of insurance premium paid by the latter by 31-8-2000. Thereafter the company itself would renew its insurance policy. 8.The company would issue post-dated cheques to the above-named creditors in respect of the amounts to be paid in 18 equal instalments starting on 31-3-2000 and ending on 31-8-2002. 9.Any default on the part of the company to abide by the above-mentioned terms would trigger liquidation proceedings before this Court in consequence of the recommendation made by the BIFR. 18. List on 4-9-2000 for further appropriate orders. Order accordingly
-
2000 (8) TMI 1043 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... 119) E.L.T. 249 (Tribunal-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 2 (CEGAT-LB) has held that such levies collected by the manufacturer from the buyers in addition to sale price of the product and passed on to JPC are not to form part of sale price. As such the same are not includible in the assessable value of the product. 3. emsp Respectfully following the ratio of the Larger Bench Tribunal rsquo s decision referred supra we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue and allow the appeals filed by the appellants. All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1039 - DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Consumer - Definition of ... ... ... ... ..... als, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation are also devoid of substance on merits. The transaction in question is purely a commercial transaction. The appellant, in the given facts, is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the dispute being raised is not a consumer dispute within the meaning of section 2(1)(e). The complaints filed by the appellant before the District Forum, therefore, were not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. The learned District Forum, in our opinion, in the given facts, was fully justified in rejecting the complaints filed by the appellant, giving him the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances, as he may be advised. 7. For the above reasons, the present appeals, filed by the appellant, viewed from all angles, are devoid of substance. The same merit dismissal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed in limine.
........
|
